Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:46:00 +0800 | From | Shannon Zhao <> | Subject | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 14/16] Xen: EFI: Parse DT parameters for Xen specific UEFI |
| |
On 2016/1/19 21:43, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 09:19:05PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> >> >> On 2016/1/18 23:41, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> CC'ing Matt Fleming >>> >>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@linaro.org> >>>> @@ -520,15 +531,28 @@ static int __init fdt_find_uefi_params(unsigned long node, const char *uname, >>>> int depth, void *data) >>>> { >>>> struct param_info *info = data; >>>> + struct params *dt_params; >>>> + unsigned int size; >>>> const void *prop; >>>> void *dest; >>>> u64 val; >>>> int i, len; >>>> >>>> - if (depth != 1 || strcmp(uname, "chosen") != 0) >>>> - return 0; >>>> + if (efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT)) { >>>> + if (depth != 2 || strcmp(uname, "uefi") != 0) >>> >>> You are already introducing this check in the previous patch when >>> setting EFI_PARAVIRT, why do this again now? But if we need to do this >>> check again, then, like Mark suggested, it should be done against the >>> full path. >>> >> This check just wants to confirm that the current node is the "uefi" >> node and we can parse it with xen_fdt_params now. > > There is no single "uefi" node as many nodes can share that name. There > is at most a single, /hypervisor/uefi node, as that is qualified by a > full path. > Sure, I will check it by full path.
> Checking the leaf node name, as above, is insufficient. For example, the > below will be accepted: > > * /chosen/uefi > * /foo/uefi > * /not-a-hypervisor/uefi > > Any of these could exist in addition to a /hypervisor/uefi node, and > could appear ealier or later in the DTB. > > There may be reasons to add such nodes in future, and regardless we > should not read properties from an invalid/wrong node. > > Thanks, > Mark. >
-- Shannon
| |