On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 21:33, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 06:57:28PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Iterating over a EFI handle array is a bit finicky, since we have
> > to take mixed mode into account, where handles are only 32-bit
> > while the native efi_handle_t type is 64-bit.
> >
> > So introduce a helper, and replace the various occurrences of
> > this pattern.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > +#define for_each_efi_handle(handle, array, size, i) \
> > + for (i = 1, handle = efi_is_64bit() \
> > + ? (efi_handle_t)(unsigned long)((u64 *)(array))[0] \
> > + : (efi_handle_t)(unsigned long)((u32 *)(array))[0]; \
> > + i++ <= (size) / (efi_is_64bit() ? sizeof(efi_handle_t) \
> > + : sizeof(u32)); \
> > + handle = efi_is_64bit() \
> > + ? (efi_handle_t)(unsigned long)((u64 *)(array))[i] \
> > + : (efi_handle_t)(unsigned long)((u32 *)(array))[i])
> > +
> > /*
> > * The UEFI spec and EDK2 reference implementation both define EFI_GUID as
> > * struct { u32 a; u16; b; u16 c; u8 d[8]; }; and so the implied alignment
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
>
> This would access one past the array, no? Eg if the array has one
> handle, i is incremented to 2 the first time the condition is checked,
> then the loop increment will access array[2] before the condition is
> checked again. There seem to be at least a couple of other for_each
> macros that might have similar issues.
>
Indeed.
> How about the below instead?
>
> #define for_each_efi_handle(handle, array, size, i) \
> for (i = 0; \
> (i < (size) / (efi_is_64bit() ? sizeof(efi_handle_t) \
> : sizeof(u32))) && \
> ((handle = efi_is_64bit() \
> ? ((efi_handle_t *)(array))[i] \
> : (efi_handle_t)(unsigned long)((u32 *)(array))[i]), 1);\
> i++)
>
Yeah, that looks correct to me, but perhaps we can come up with
something slightly more readable? :-)
(Not saying my code was better in that respect)
