On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 01:04, Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com> wrote: > > Laszlo: > I agree with you. MAX_UINT32 is more comfortable. >
Liming, No definitions for MAX_UINT32 exist currently in BaseTools, so I will have to add the following: diff --git a/BaseTools/Source/C/Common/CommonLib.h b/BaseTools/Source/C/Common/CommonLib.h index b1c6c00a3478..1c40180329c4 100644 --- a/BaseTools/Source/C/Common/CommonLib.h +++ b/BaseTools/Source/C/Common/CommonLib.h @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. #define MAX_LONG_FILE_PATH 500 #define MAX_UINT64 ((UINT64)0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFULL) +#define MAX_UINT32 ((UINT32)0xFFFFFFFFULL) #define MAX_UINT16 ((UINT16)0xFFFF) #define MAX_UINT8 ((UINT8)0xFF) #define ARRAY_SIZE(Array) (sizeof (Array) / sizeof ((Array)[0])) Does your Reviewed-by cover that as well? > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com] > >Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 9:06 PM > >To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org > >Cc: Zhu, Yonghong <yonghong....@intel.com>; Gao, Liming > ><liming....@intel.com>; Feng, Bob C <bob.c.f...@intel.com>; Carsey, Jaben > ><jaben.car...@intel.com> > >Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] BaseTools/DevicePath: use MAX_UINT16 as > >default device path max size > > > >On 11/30/18 23:45, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> Replace the default size limit of IsDevicePathValid() with a value > >> that does not depend on the native word size of the build host. > >> > >> 64 KB seems sufficient as the upper bound of a device path handled > >> by UEFI. > >> > >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 > >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> > >> Reviewed-by: Jaben Carsey <jaben.car...@intel.com> > >> --- > >> BaseTools/Source/C/DevicePath/DevicePathUtilities.c | 4 ++-- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/BaseTools/Source/C/DevicePath/DevicePathUtilities.c > >b/BaseTools/Source/C/DevicePath/DevicePathUtilities.c > >> index d4ec2742b7c8..ba7f83e53070 100644 > >> --- a/BaseTools/Source/C/DevicePath/DevicePathUtilities.c > >> +++ b/BaseTools/Source/C/DevicePath/DevicePathUtilities.c > >> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ IsDevicePathValid ( > >> ASSERT (DevicePath != NULL); > >> > >> if (MaxSize == 0) { > >> - MaxSize = MAX_UINTN; > >> + MaxSize = MAX_UINT16; > >> } > >> > >> // > >> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ IsDevicePathValid ( > >> return FALSE; > >> } > >> > >> - if (NodeLength > MAX_UINTN - Size) { > >> + if (NodeLength > MAX_UINT16 - Size) { > >> return FALSE; > >> } > >> Size += NodeLength; > >> > > > >I'm somewhat undecided about this patch. > > > >(1) IsDevicePathValid() also exists in: > > > >- MdePkg/Library/UefiDevicePathLib/DevicePathUtilities.c > >- MdePkg/Library/UefiDevicePathLibDevicePathProtocol/UefiDevicePathLib.c > > > >Both have: > > > > if (MaxSize == 0) { > > MaxSize = MAX_UINTN; > > } > > > >Relative to those, this change departs quite strongly. > > > > > >(2) In addition, a single device path node may extend up to 64KB. That > >would be pathologic, yes, but the option is there. > > > > > >... Of course, we are discussing theoretical limits. Still I'd feel more > >comfortable with MAX_UINT32. Lifting the limit from 64K to 4G wouldn't > >cost us anything (in development effort), it would be a no-op on 32-bit > >build hosts, it would be a theoretical-only change on 64-bit build > >hosts, and it would leave us with a larger "safety margin". > > > >I won't insist, but I thought I should raise this. (Sorry if this has > >been discussed under v1 already.) If you agree, no need to repost (from > >my side anyway) just for this. > > > >With or without the update: > > > >Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > > > >Thanks > >Laszlo _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
