From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Huang Ying Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: fix apei related table size checking Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:41:39 +0800 Message-ID: <1280130099.2771.150.camel@yhuang-dev> References: <4C49D3C5.4000007@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:21852 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752727Ab0GZHlm (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:41:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C49D3C5.4000007@kernel.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Len Brown , Andi Kleen , Stephen Rothwell , Tejun Heo , Daniel J Blueman , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 01:39 +0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > also check if we can find right action in apei. > > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu > > --- > drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c | 5 +++++ > drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c | 3 ++- > drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c | 3 ++- > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/apei/einj.c > @@ -426,7 +426,8 @@ DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(error_inject_fop > > static int einj_check_table(struct acpi_table_einj *einj_tab) > { > - if (einj_tab->header_length != sizeof(struct acpi_table_einj)) > + if (einj_tab->header_length != > + (sizeof(struct acpi_table_einj) - sizeof(einj_tab->header))) > return -EINVAL; It seems that the header_length field is not set properly by BIOS on my testing machine which I used to develop the original code. Will try to contact BIOS guys to make sure. > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c > @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ int apei_exec_run(struct apei_exec_conte > u32 i, ip; > struct acpi_whea_header *entry; > apei_exec_ins_func_t run; > + bool found_action = false; > > ctx->ip = 0; > > @@ -178,6 +179,7 @@ rewind: > entry = &ctx->action_table[i]; > if (entry->action != action) > continue; > + found_action = true; > if (ip == ctx->ip) { > if (entry->instruction >= ctx->instructions || > !ctx->ins_table[entry->instruction].run) { > @@ -198,6 +200,9 @@ rewind: > goto rewind; > } > > + if (!found_action) > + return -ENODEV; -ENOENT is better here? Best Regards, Huang Ying