On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:24:16AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
>
> On 11/10/17 06:07, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:02:01PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>>--- a/kernel/kexec_file.c
> >>>+++ b/kernel/kexec_file.c
> >>>@@ -26,30 +26,79 @@
> >>> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> >>> #include "kexec_internal.h"
> >>>
> >>>+const __weak struct kexec_file_ops * const kexec_file_loaders[] = {NULL};
> >>>+
> >>> static int kexec_calculate_store_digests(struct kimage *image);
> >>>
> >>>+int _kexec_kernel_image_probe(struct kimage *image, void *buf,
> >>>+ unsigned long buf_len)
> >>>+{
> >>>+ const struct kexec_file_ops *fops;
> >>>+ int ret = -ENOEXEC;
> >>>+
> >>>+ for (fops = kexec_file_loaders[0]; fops && fops->probe; ++fops) {
> >>
> >>Hmm, that's not gonna work (and I see that what I said in the previous
> >>patch was not 100% correct either).
> >
> >Can you elaborate this a bit more?
> >
>
> Yes. With the current state of the loop, you are going to check the first
> element of kexec_file_loaders[0], and what will get incremented is the
> pointer contained in kexec_file_loaders rather than a pointer pointer
> pointing at an element of kexec_file_loaders.
Aha, got it. I thought that you were talking about const usage.
Since I don't want to bother anybody with my repeated minor updates,
I'd like to post a new version, v6, only if you don't have any more
comments and if Catalin and Will are likely to accept my other patches.
Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI
>
> >I'm sure that, with my code, any member of fops, cannot be changed;
> >"const struct kexec_file_ops *fops" means that fops is a pointer to
> >"constant sturct kexec_file_ops," while "struct kexec_file_ops *
> >const kexec_file_loaders[]" means that kexec_file_loaders is a "constant
> >array" of pointers to "constant struct kexec_file_ops."
> >
>
> Hmm, right, my suggestion below doesn't have the right constness, fops
> should be declared as:
> const struct kexec_file_ops * const * fops;
>
> This can point at elements of kexec_file_loaders.
>
> Hope this makes more sense.
>
> Cheers,
>
> >Thanks,
> >-Takahiro AKASHI
> >
> >
> >>'fops' should be of type 'const struct kexec_file_ops **', and the loop
> >>should be:
> >>
> >>for (fops = &kexec_file_loaders[0]; *fops && (*fops)->probe; ++fops)
> >>
> >>With some additional dereferences in the body of the loop.
> >>
> >>Unless you prefer the previous state of the loop (with i and the break
> >>inside), but I still think this looks better.
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>
>
>
> --
> Julien Thierry
