From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B372C04AB0 for ; Sat, 25 May 2019 09:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F24221848 for ; Sat, 25 May 2019 09:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="ceHJWOcl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726497AbfEYJSt (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 May 2019 05:18:49 -0400 Received: from mail-it1-f194.google.com ([209.85.166.194]:54318 "EHLO mail-it1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726432AbfEYJSt (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 May 2019 05:18:49 -0400 Received: by mail-it1-f194.google.com with SMTP id h20so19699274itk.4 for ; Sat, 25 May 2019 02:18:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XET7OF75wNiBS0S9YBCqjrCeD8nZnzrXhbrqUvMdrP8=; b=ceHJWOclYeyDuJd7Q+aBCyW8OCwNFP8/2cWymfgFMO3AHiV4OddjDn8yfqX+xarEuT QDG0HGrexSN7InLbYaWJc2k4H5kadELuPS8oT/40UksxXj9l1VNDDQqVXZ5jR9AaTaqw MQvnpIeWvRKTyesCYEN4KeoUdjR2inujPC0435YZvqMqunD5W6k1bDxy+xa6RjdN7n3K dmPEMXbwYu/QtRnAnOD9DEmXFcafL68r+OEYi5eqHiEOefJosh1ceV2DTQM6ZmE3nj16 Iu4C5tFR8tDL/XibRnPlSvqjCOOaG+NCyaWEXHT04A/s1pATYUJPIIrw37Ec+fCtEKCs MLrA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XET7OF75wNiBS0S9YBCqjrCeD8nZnzrXhbrqUvMdrP8=; b=GcVexNqjLtJh5VMbUNtGNojArQvUfYoyxmoslAsT5kdWM+N7KFSEvmjpN6mYz0A8g5 ICzq4w7QET6+cDrYPSt7uZhhIE27uRzFZHRQm/OCuN6K3HIp9WSQd4NbxtsWrTPedftH DwlA6w/syhmaXZ28LjO3M9y8NLFFuutGWcCXU3ikUBIlOjxWAeTvY2AWsJbQ6vmGJkk0 4SEBPqYMmnB5KpHAk3cJnwY2JEmOuH5eXt6acP53RzUu/ONvfHBWlF7MHcv4+BXEOU4g doqAEnq1LH1xJNQZdGCpAB1z5nkjvb40SYEPXIOQ5OM4DYNodL3Obw+oiX1y+fzA+Ocv kJSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU3t2aZNwGLcNSCN24OBY5DaqJtF2oTz/FcVbWy7lfZT/CbY9Xr J1f87sR9TttC0JlsXYubBKsP1GkvIo4EGipLlEInTg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz59acG8/T/AZt2D2LSZs/6ic5Hm2z3iRvDn8ZZchk6sOZJbigHdn6crFhkOiYJp3hj4oetxEMkqhWgvWAmWTM= X-Received: by 2002:a24:d00e:: with SMTP id m14mr19817246itg.153.1558775928708; Sat, 25 May 2019 02:18:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190517082633.GA3890@zhanggen-UX430UQ> <20190517090628.GA4162@zhanggen-UX430UQ> <20190523005133.GA14881@zhanggen-UX430UQ> <20190525023608.GA11613@zhanggen-UX430UQ> In-Reply-To: <20190525023608.GA11613@zhanggen-UX430UQ> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 11:18:36 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] efi_64: Fix a missing-check bug in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c To: Gen Zhang Cc: Darren Hart , linux-efi , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 04:36, Gen Zhang wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:07:10PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Apologies for only spotting this now, but I seem to have given some bad advice. > > > > efi_call_phys_prolog() in efi_64.c will also return NULL if > > (!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP)), but this is not an error condition. So > > that occurrence has to be updated: please return efi_mm.pgd instead. > Thanks for your reply, Ard. You mean that we should return efi_mm.pgd > when allcoation fails? And we should delete return EFI_ABORTED on the > caller site, right? In that case, how should we handle the NULL pointer > returned by condition if(!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP)) on the caller > site? > No, the other way around. I have already updated the patch, so don't worry about it. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git/commit/?h=urgent&id=d2dc2bc7b60b936b95da4b04c2912c02974c3e9f