On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:14:40PM +0200, Môshe van der Sterre wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 11:24 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 May, at 06:09:01AM, Môshe van der Sterre wrote:
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c | 7 +++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c
> > > index 6a2f569..a7fdb61 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi-bgrt.c
> > > @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
> > > #include <linux/efi.h>
> > > #include <linux/efi-bgrt.h>
> > > +#include "../../mm/physaddr.h"
> > > +
> > > struct acpi_table_bgrt *bgrt_tab;
> > > void *__initdata bgrt_image;
> > > size_t __initdata bgrt_image_size;
> > > @@ -67,6 +69,11 @@ void __init efi_bgrt_init(void)
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > + if (!phys_addr_valid(bgrt_tab->image_address)) {
> > > + pr_notice("Ignoring BGRT: image address is bogus\n");
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > image = memremap(bgrt_tab->image_address, sizeof(bmp_header), MEMREMAP_WB);
> > > if (!image) {
> > > pr_notice("Ignoring BGRT: failed to map image header memory\n");
> > > --
> > > 2.4.3
> > >
> > If this does indeed fix Andy's immediate issue (and it looks like
> > it would) I'm happy to apply this as an interim solution.
> I have tested that this does indeed fix the warning for Andy's value of
> ->image_address, but off course I can't test this with the actual hardware
> that Andy has. Do you want me to resend this with a commit message so it can
> be applied?
With a commit message and a clearer pr_notice than "is bogus", yes. How
about "image address not a valid physical memory address"?
--
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
