Re: [PATCH v3] efi: Ignore unrealistically large option roms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 09:43:18AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
> > index 47d3efff6805..8650ab268ee7 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c
> > @@ -122,7 +122,14 @@ __setup_efi_pci32(efi_pci_io_protocol_32 *pci, struct pci_setup_rom **__rom)
> >  	if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> >  		return status;
> >  
> > -	if (!pci->romimage || !pci->romsize)
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Some firmwares contain EFI function pointers at the place where the
> > +	 * romimage and romsize fields are supposed to be. Typically the EFI
> > +	 * code is mapped at high addresses, translating to an unrealistically
> > +	 * large romsize. The UEFI spec limits the size of option ROMs to 16
> > +	 * MiB so we reject any roms over 16 MiB in size to catch this.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!pci->romimage || !pci->romsize || pci->romsize > 0x1000000)
> >  		return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> >  
> >  	size = pci->romsize + sizeof(*rom);
> > @@ -230,7 +237,14 @@ __setup_efi_pci64(efi_pci_io_protocol_64 *pci, struct pci_setup_rom **__rom)
> >  	if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> >  		return status;
> >  
> > -	if (!pci->romimage || !pci->romsize)
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Some firmwares contain EFI function pointers at the place where the
> > +	 * romimage and romsize fields are supposed to be. Typically the EFI
> > +	 * code is mapped at high addresses, translating to an unrealistically
> > +	 * large romsize. The UEFI spec limits the size of option ROMs to 16
> > +	 * MiB so we reject any roms over 16 MiB in size to catch this.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!pci->romimage || !pci->romsize || pci->romsize > 0x1000000)
> >  		return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> 
> Any reason why this couldn't be factored out into a efi_check_rom(pci)
> kind of helper function, which would unify the logic and would also
> avoid the duplicate comment blocks?

The real fix would be to deduplicate __setup_efi_pci32 and __setup_efi_pci64
à la commits 2bd79f30eea1 and db4545d9a788.

(That said the comment seems overly wordy.  A short pointer to the UEFI spec
with chapter number should be sufficient, anything else should be in the
changelog.  Just my 2 cents anyway.)

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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux