On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 04:12:55PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 06:39:28AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > index 411b268bc0a2..59db90626042 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> > @@ -725,10 +725,20 @@ process_efi_entries(unsigned long minimum, unsigned long image_size)
> > * but in practice there's firmware where using that memory leads
> > * to crashes.
> > *
> > - * Only EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY is guaranteed to be free.
> > + * Only EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY and EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY (if
> > + * supported) are guaranteed to be free.
> > */
> > - if (md->type != EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY)
> > +
> > + switch (md->type) {
> > + case EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY:
> > + break;
> > + case EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY:
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY))
> > + break;
> > continue;
> > + default:
> > + continue;
> > + }
>
> Is there any special reason for this to be a switch-case or can it
> simply be a compound conditional if (bla...) ?
The equivalent 'if' statement is something like:
if (md->type != EFI_CONVENTIONAL_MEMORY &&
!(md->type == EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY)))
continue;
I find it harder to follow.
Do you want me to change to the 'if' anyway?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
