On Sun, 20 Dec, at 10:53:11PM, Môshe van der Sterre wrote:
> Unintuitively, the BGRT graphic is apparently meant to be usable if
> the valid bit in not set. The valid bit only conveys uncertainty
> about the validity in relation to the screen state.
>
> Windows 10 actually uses the BGRT image for its boot screen even if
> not 'valid', for example when the user triggered the boot menu.
> Because it is unclear if all firmwares will provide a usable graphic
> in this case, we now look at the BMP magic number as an additional
> check.
> ---
> arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c
> index b097066..a243381 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c
> @@ -57,11 +57,6 @@ void __init efi_bgrt_init(void)
> bgrt_tab->status);
> return;
> }
> - if (bgrt_tab->status != 1) {
> - pr_debug("Ignoring BGRT: invalid status %u (expected 1)\n",
> - bgrt_tab->status);
> - return;
> - }
> if (bgrt_tab->image_type != 0) {
> pr_err("Ignoring BGRT: invalid image type %u (expected 0)\n",
> bgrt_tab->image_type);
> @@ -80,6 +75,11 @@ void __init efi_bgrt_init(void)
>
> memcpy(&bmp_header, image, sizeof(bmp_header));
> memunmap(image);
> + if (bmp_header.id != 0x4d42) {
> + pr_err("Ignoring BGRT: Incorrect BMP magic number 0x%x (expected 0x4d42)\n",
> + bmp_header.id);
> + return;
> + }
> bgrt_image_size = bmp_header.size;
>
> bgrt_image = kmalloc(bgrt_image_size, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN);
Shouldn't this be pr_debug() instead of pr_err()?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
