On 04.11.2021 22:50, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>> On 4 Nov 2021, at 21:35, Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>>> On 4 Nov 2021, at 20:56, Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> @@ -851,10 +853,14 @@ static int __init >>>>> handle_dom0less_domain_node(EFI_FILE_HANDLE dir_handle, >>>>> * dom0 and domU guests to be loaded. >>>>> * Returns the number of multiboot modules found or a negative number for >>>>> error. >>>>> */ >>>>> -static int __init efi_check_dt_boot(EFI_FILE_HANDLE dir_handle) >>>>> +static int __init efi_check_dt_boot(EFI_LOADED_IMAGE *loaded_image) >>>>> { >>>>> int chosen, node, addr_len, size_len; >>>>> unsigned int i = 0, modules_found = 0; >>>>> + EFI_FILE_HANDLE dir_handle; >>>>> + CHAR16 *file_name; >>>>> + >>>>> + dir_handle = get_parent_handle(loaded_image, &file_name); >>>> >>>> We can’t use get_parent_handle here because we will end up with the same >>>> problem, >>>> we would need to use the filesystem if and only if we need to use it, >>> >>> Understood, but it would work the same way as this version of the patch: >>> if we end up calling read_file with dir_handle == NULL, then read_file >>> would do: >>> >>> blexit(L"Error: No access to the filesystem"); >>> >>> If we don't end up calling read_file, then everything works even if >>> dir_handle == NULL. Right? >> >> Oh yes sorry my bad Stefano! Having this version of the patch, it will work. >> >> My understanding was instead that the Jan suggestion is to revert the place >> of call of get_parent_handle (like in your code diff), but also to remove the >> changes to get_parent_handle and read_file. >> I guess Jan will specify his preference, but if he meant the last one, then >> the only way I see... > > I think we should keep the changes to get_parent_handle and read_file, > otherwise it will make it awkward, and those changes are good in their > own right anyway.
As a maintainer of this code I'm afraid I have to say that I disagree. These changes were actually part of the reason why I went and looked how things could (and imo ought to be) done differently. Jan
