On 9/15/2023 9:57 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023, Jithu Joseph wrote:
>
>> Perform additional validation prior to loading IFS image.
>>
>> Error out if the size of the file being loaded doesn't
>> match the size specified in the header.
>
> Please fix these short lines in all your patches.
Will do
>
>> Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Tested-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
>> index e8fb03dd8bcf..778a3b89a24d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/ifs/load.c
>> @@ -376,6 +376,7 @@ int ifs_load_firmware(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> const struct ifs_test_caps *test = ifs_get_test_caps(dev);
>> struct ifs_data *ifsd = ifs_get_data(dev);
>> + unsigned int expected_size;
>> const struct firmware *fw;
>> char scan_path[64];
>> int ret = -EINVAL;
>> @@ -390,6 +391,13 @@ int ifs_load_firmware(struct device *dev)
>> goto done;
>> }
>>
>> + expected_size = ((struct microcode_header_intel *)fw->data)->totalsize;
>> + if (fw->size != expected_size) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "File size mismatch (expected %d, actual %ld). Corrupted IFS image.\n",
>> + expected_size, fw->size);
>> + return -EBADFD;
>> + }
>> +
>> ret = image_sanity_check(dev, (struct microcode_header_intel *)fw->data);
>
> It looks than a bit odd to add the check here and not into a function
> called image_sanity_check()?!?
image_sanity_check() validates the contents of the image, whereas the new check
in some sense validates request_firmware_direct() results. Hence it was placed
outside of content validation / closer to request_firmware_direct()
Jithu
