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;
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:11:49 -0500
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] efi/libstub: use a helper to iterate over a EFI
 handle array
Message-ID: <20191214211149.GF140998@rani.riverdale.lan>
References: <20191214175735.22518-1-ardb@kernel.org>
 <20191214175735.22518-4-ardb@kernel.org>
 <20191214203257.GD140998@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <CAKv+Gu-XAvYf8G+7Oi-XVM+DvR89_zkmETmou-2ftgC41tnvMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu9kEySOrKM0Q01a-ZFbSTZz51TcfmnWbSq=LWqKw=8cNw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9kEySOrKM0Q01a-ZFbSTZz51TcfmnWbSq=LWqKw=8cNw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 09:04:10PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 21:40, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 21:33, Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> 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@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > +#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)
> 
> How about
> 
> #define efi_get_handle_at(array, idx)      \
>     (efi_is_64bit() ? (efi_handle_t)(unsigned long)((u64 *)(array))[idx] \
>                     : (efi_handle_t)(unsigned long)((u32 *)(array))[i])
> 
> 
> #define efi_get_handle_num(size) \
>     ((size) / (efi_is_64bit() ? sizeof(u64) : sizeof(u32)))
> 
> #define for_each_efi_handle(handle, array, size, i) \
>     for (i = 0; \
>          i < efi_get_handle_num(size) && \
>             ((handle = efi_get_handle_at((array), i)) || true); \
>          i++)

Heh, I came up with almost the same thing, but yours is slightly better,
You have a typo in efi_get_handle_at (i instead of idx in the second
line).