Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191214175735.22518-1-ardb@kernel.org> <20191214175735.22518-6-ardb@kernel.org>
 <20191214194626.GA140998@rani.riverdale.lan> <20191214194936.GB140998@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <CAKv+Gu_JQz=xd_UmqiuZ8TvA+ksT_rY4iXP_j7OdW4F5sfZt9g@mail.gmail.com> <20191214201334.GC140998@rani.riverdale.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20191214201334.GC140998@rani.riverdale.lan>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:27:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu-A4bE0DM96-dNjtsYG=a3g-X4f-y=NcJ5ZCvZHaDJZmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] efi/libstub: distinguish between native/mixed not
 32/64 bit
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 21:13, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 07:54:25PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 20:49, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 02:46:27PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 06:57:30PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define efi_table_attr(table, attr, instance) ({                   \
> > > > > +   __typeof__(((table##_t *)0)->attr) __ret;                       \
> > > > > +   if (efi_is_native()) {                                          \
> > > > > +           __ret = ((table##_t *)instance)->attr;                  \
> > > > > +   } else {                                                        \
> > > > > +           __typeof__(((table##_32_t *)0)->attr) at;               \
> > > > > +           at = (((table##_32_t *)(unsigned long)instance)->attr); \
> > > > > +           __ret = (__typeof__(__ret))(unsigned long)at;           \
> > > > > +   }                                                               \
> > > > > +   __ret;                                                          \
> > > > > +})
> > > >
> > > > The casting of `at' is appropriate if the attr is a pointer type which
> > > > needs to be zero-extended to 64-bit, but for other fields it is
> > > > unnecessary at best and possibly dangerous.  There are probably no
> > > > instances currently where it is called for a non-pointer field, but is
> > > > it possible to detect if the type is pointer and avoid the cast if not?
> > >
> > > To clarify, I mean the casting via `unsigned long' -- casting to type of
> > > __ret should be ok. We could also use uintptr_t for cleanliness when the
> > > cast is required?
> >
> > Could you give an example of how it could break?
>
> eg, if the field is actually a structure. Nobody seems to do this
> currently, but say for
>         efi_table_attr(efi_boot_services, hdr, instance)
> you shouldn't cast hdr to unsigned long.
>

Yes. the efi_guid_t in efi_config_table_t is another example - I had
to work around that in get_efi_config_table().

> There's also the case of nested 32/64-bit structures that breaks, but
> that might be too hard to try to handle:
>         efi_table_attr(efi_pci_io_protocol, io, instance)
> where io is a structure of two pointers which would need to be
> individually casted. It's properly accessible as io.read/io.write
> though.
>

Yes. We already have calls to pci.read that use this.

> In general though, everything is either a pointer or a u64, so if it's
> too messy to detect pointer type, the cast is still probably safe in
> practice.

Yes. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve this, but mixed mode is
somewhat of a maintenance burden, so if new future functionality needs
to leave mixed mode behind, I'm not too bothered.

Thanks,
Ard.