On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:14:52PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 21 November 2016 at 12:41, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Looking in efi_get_secureboot(), is there a reason:
> >> >
> >> > efi_guid_t var_guid = EFI_GLOBAL_VARIABLE_GUID;
> >> >
> >> > isn't static const?
> >>
> >> Not a good one, no. It used to be static const, but for some reason,
> >> commit 30d7bf034c03 ("efi/arm64: Check SetupMode when determining
> >> Secure Boot status") removed the static and the const (and I reviewed
> >> it and did not complain AFAIR)
> >> I'll gladly take a patch that reinstates that, though.
> >
> > Also, is there a reason that:
> >
> > typedef efi_status_t efi_get_variable_t (efi_char16_t *name, efi_guid_t *vendor, u32 *attr,
> > unsigned long *data_size, void *data);
> >
> > Doesn't have const name and vendor?
>
> Yes, but not a good one either.
>
> Sadly, the prototypes in the UEFI spec completely ignore constness,
> and these definitions are intended to be identical to the ones in the
> spec. This also means, for instance, that most UEFI firmwares stores
> these kinds of GUIDs in read-write memory, which is a potential
> goldmine for hackers, given how GUIDs are UEFI's duct tape, i.e.,
> keeping the world together.
But the spec declares these two parameters as "IN", so it would seem
legal to declare them const, no?
Incidentally I've already prepared commits a couple of days ago to
change the GUID declarations to const everywhere and also change the
get_variable prototype, I was planning to submit them for 4.11... :-)
Thanks,
Lukas
--
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
