> On 21 Nov 2016, at 15:17, Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
Good point.
> 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... :-)
>
I would like to take those, provided that they only modify IN pointer arguments.--
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
