Re: [PATCH 2/4] efi/x86: move efi bgrt init code to early init code

Dave Young
2017-01-16T02:55:33Z

On 01/13/17 at 01:21pm, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13 2017, Dave Young wrote:
>
> > On 01/13/17 at 10:21am, Dave Young wrote:
> >> On 01/13/17 at 12:11am, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jan 13 2017, Dave Young wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On 01/12/17 at 12:54pm, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> >> > >> On Thu, Jan 12 2017, Dave Young wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > -void __init efi_bgrt_init(void)
> >> > >> > +void __init efi_bgrt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
> >> > >> > {
> >> > >> > - acpi_status status;
> >> > >> > void *image;
> >> > >> > struct bmp_header bmp_header;
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > if (acpi_disabled)
> >> > >> > return;
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > - status = acpi_get_table("BGRT", 0,
> >> > >> > - (struct acpi_table_header **)&bgrt_tab);
> >> > >> > - if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >> > >> > - return;
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Not sure, but wouldn't it be safer to reverse the order of this
> >> > >> assignment
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > + bgrt_tab = *(struct acpi_table_bgrt *)table;
> >> > >
> >> > > Nicolai, sorry, I'm not sure I understand the comment, is it
> >> > > about above line?
> >> > > Could you elaborate a bit?
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> and this length check
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > I also do not get this :(
> >> >
> >> > Ah sorry, my point is this: the length check should perhaps be made
> >> > before doing the assignment to bgrt_tab because otherwise, we might end
> >> > up reading from invalid memory.
> >> >
> >> > I.e. if (struct acpi_table_bgrt *)table->length < sizeof(bgrt_tab), then
> >> >
> >> > bgrt_tab = *(struct acpi_table_bgrt *)table;
> >> >
> >> > would read past the table's end.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure whether this is a real problem though -- that is, whether
> >> > this read could ever hit some unmapped memory.
> >>
> >> Nicolai, thanks for the explanation. It make sense to move it to even later
> >> at the end of the function.
> >
> > Indeed assignment should be after the length checking, but with another
> > tmp variable the assignment to global var can be moved to the end to
> > avoid clear the image_address field..
>
> I had a look at your updated patches at
> http://people.redhat.com/~ruyang/efi-bgrt/ and they look fine to me.

Many thanks~

>
> One minor remark:
>
> sizeof(acpi_table_bgrt) == 56 and it might be better to avoid the extra
> tmp copy in efi_bgrt_init() by
> - assigning directly to bgrt_tab
> - do a 'goto err' rather than a 'return' from all the error paths
> - do a memset(&bgrt_tab, 0, sizeof(bgrt_tab)) at 'err:'

Updated in V2, indeed text size shrunk from 1199 to 762.

>
>
> With the copy to the on-stack 'bgrt', gcc 6.2.0 emits this for each of
> the two copies:
>
> 41: 8a 07 mov (%rdi),%al
> 43: 88 45 d7 mov %al,-0x29(%rbp)
> 46: 8a 47 01 mov 0x1(%rdi),%al
> 49: 88 45 d6 mov %al,-0x2a(%rbp)
> 4c: 8a 47 02 mov 0x2(%rdi),%al
> 4f: 88 45 d5 mov %al,-0x2b(%rbp)
> 52: 8a 47 03 mov 0x3(%rdi),%al
> 55: 88 45 d4 mov %al,-0x2c(%rbp)
> 58: 8a 47 08 mov 0x8(%rdi),%al
> 5b: 88 45 d3 mov %al,-0x2d(%rbp)
> 5e: 8a 47 09 mov 0x9(%rdi),%al
> 61: 88 45 d2 mov %al,-0x2e(%rbp)
> 64: 8a 47 0a mov 0xa(%rdi),%al
> 67: 88 45 d1 mov %al,-0x2f(%rbp)
> 6a: 8a 47 0b mov 0xb(%rdi),%al
> 6d: 88 45 d0 mov %al,-0x30(%rbp)
> 70: 8a 47 0c mov 0xc(%rdi),%al
> 73: 88 45 cf mov %al,-0x31(%rbp)
> 76: 8a 47 0d mov 0xd(%rdi),%al
> 79: 88 45 ce mov %al,-0x32(%rbp)
> 7c: 8a 47 0e mov 0xe(%rdi),%al
> 7f: 88 45 cd mov %al,-0x33(%rbp)
> 82: 8a 47 0f mov 0xf(%rdi),%al
> 85: 88 45 cc mov %al,-0x34(%rbp)
> 88: 8a 47 10 mov 0x10(%rdi),%al
> 8b: 88 45 cb mov %al,-0x35(%rbp)
> 8e: 8a 47 11 mov 0x11(%rdi),%al
> 91: 88 45 ca mov %al,-0x36(%rbp)
> 94: 8a 47 12 mov 0x12(%rdi),%al
> 97: 88 45 c9 mov %al,-0x37(%rbp)
> 9a: 8a 47 13 mov 0x13(%rdi),%al
> 9d: 88 45 c8 mov %al,-0x38(%rbp)
> a0: 8a 47 14 mov 0x14(%rdi),%al
> a3: 8a 5f 26 mov 0x26(%rdi),%bl
> a6: 0f b6 77 27 movzbl 0x27(%rdi),%esi
> aa: 4c 8b 67 28 mov 0x28(%rdi),%r12
> ae: 88 45 c7 mov %al,-0x39(%rbp)
> b1: 8a 47 15 mov 0x15(%rdi),%al
> b4: 44 8b 6f 30 mov 0x30(%rdi),%r13d
> b8: 44 8b 7f 34 mov 0x34(%rdi),%r15d
> bc: 88 45 c6 mov %al,-0x3a(%rbp)
> bf: 8a 47 16 mov 0x16(%rdi),%al
> c2: 88 45 c5 mov %al,-0x3b(%rbp)
> c5: 8a 47 17 mov 0x17(%rdi),%al
> c8: 88 45 c4 mov %al,-0x3c(%rbp)
> cb: 8b 47 18 mov 0x18(%rdi),%eax
> ce: 89 45 c0 mov %eax,-0x40(%rbp)
> d1: 8a 47 1c mov 0x1c(%rdi),%al
> d4: 88 45 bf mov %al,-0x41(%rbp)
> d7: 8a 47 1d mov 0x1d(%rdi),%al
> da: 88 45 be mov %al,-0x42(%rbp)
> dd: 8a 47 1e mov 0x1e(%rdi),%al
> e0: 88 45 bd mov %al,-0x43(%rbp)
> e3: 8a 47 1f mov 0x1f(%rdi),%al
> e6: 88 45 bc mov %al,-0x44(%rbp)
> e9: 8b 47 20 mov 0x20(%rdi),%eax
> ec: 89 45 b8 mov %eax,-0x48(%rbp)
> ef: 66 8b 47 24 mov 0x24(%rdi),%ax
>
> Not sure why gcc would think that storing bgrt in reversed order on the
> stack might be a good idea, but well...

I have no idea about this..

>
> Thanks,
>
> Nicolai

Thanks
Dave