On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 03:44, Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 01:38:04PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:38:03AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:55:50PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm64-stub.c > > > > b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm64-stub.c > > > > index 1550d244e996..24022f956e01 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm64-stub.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm64-stub.c > > > > @@ -111,6 +111,8 @@ efi_status_t handle_kernel_image(efi_system_table_t > > > > *sys_table_arg, > > > > status = efi_random_alloc(sys_table_arg, *reserve_size, > > > > MIN_KIMG_ALIGN, reserve_addr, > > > > (u32)phys_seed); > > > > + if (status != EFI_SUCCESS) > > > > + pr_efi_err(sys_table_arg, "KASLR allocate_pages() > > > > failed\n"); > > > > > > > > *image_addr = *reserve_addr + offset; > > > > } else { > > > > @@ -135,6 +137,8 @@ efi_status_t handle_kernel_image(efi_system_table_t > > > > *sys_table_arg, > > > > EFI_LOADER_DATA, > > > > *reserve_size / EFI_PAGE_SIZE, > > > > (efi_physical_addr_t *)reserve_addr); > > > > + if (status != EFI_SUCCESS) > > > > + pr_efi_err(sys_table_arg, "regular allocate_pages() > > > > failed\n"); > > > > } > > > > > > Not sure I see the need to distinsuish the 'KASLR' case from the 'regular' > > > case -- only one should run, right? That also didn't seem to be part of > > > the use-case in the commit, unless I'm missing something. > > > > I just did that to help with differentiating the cases. Maybe something > > was special about KASLR picking the wrong location that triggered the > > failure, etc. > > > > > Maybe combine the prints as per the diff below? > > > > That could work. If you're against the KASLR vs regular thing, I can > > respin the patch? > > Happy to Ack it with that change, although I suppose it's ultimately up > to Ard :) >
No objections from me, but I prefer Will's version.