Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Zeng, Star]

I meant
the behavior by the spec was unpredictable.

"Passing in a VariableName parameter that is neither a Null-terminated 
string nor a value that was returned on the previous call to
GetNextVariableName() may also produce *unpredictable* results."

The behavior by the code was to return EFI_NOT_FOUND, it was our code's 
implementation choice.


Do you mean which piece of comments to be put in code? :)



Thanks,
Star
-Original Message-
From: Ni, Ruiyu 
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 2:18 PM
To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Gao, Liming 
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to 
follow UEFI 2.7

Thanks! Could you please put the comments in code?

But why do you say it's unpredictable? The behavior is to return EFI_NOT_FOUND.

Thanks/Ray

> -Original Message-
> From: Zeng, Star
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:52 PM
> To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> Before UEFI 2.6a and 2.7, the behavior is unpredictable, our *CODE* 
> chose to return EFI_NOT_FOUND.
> 
> "Passing in a VariableName parameter that is neither a Null-terminated 
> string nor a value that was returned on the previous call to
> GetNextVariableName() may also produce unpredictable results."
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Star
> -Original Message-
> From: Ni, Ruiyu
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:47 PM
> To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> Can you add more comments here to describe the purpose is to change 
> the return status from Not Found to Invalid Parameter, and the reason 
> of choosing Invalid Parameter?
> 
> Thanks/Ray
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Zeng, Star
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:41 PM
> > To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> > 
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> > It is to return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER when the input VariableName 
> > and VendorGuid are not a valid variable to search next variable.
> > It is added from UEFI 2.7 spec.
> > Before the spec change, the code is to return EFI_NOT_FOUND at that case.
> > After the spec change, EFI_NOT_FOUND seemingly is reserved to 
> > indicate the ending of searching.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Star
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ni, Ruiyu
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:37 PM
> > To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Cc: Gao, Liming 
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> > I understand your point.
> > But I do think it hurts readability.
> >
> > BTW, what does the below change does?
> >if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > +if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
> > +  //
> > +  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a 
> > + name
> > and GUID of an existing variable.
> > +  //
> > +  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > +}
> >  return Status;
> >}
> >
> >
> > Thanks/Ray
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Zeng, Star
> > > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:05 AM
> > > To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> > > 
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> > > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> > >
> > > Ray,
> > >
> > > The code is like low hanging fruit from my practice for me, and I 
> > > don't think it hurts readability although it may not bring 
> > > performance improvement, it depends on how many variables in 
> > > variable region, how many times of calling GetNextVariableName, 
> > > and how fast of
> > GetNextVariableName.
> > >
> > > The code practice I did is on NT32 and my real platforms. Is there 
> > > anyone can make sure he/she tested all the systems in the world 
> > > for their
> > code?
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, I can update the patch if you insist.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Star
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ni, Ruiyu
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:08 AM
> > > To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > Cc: Gao, Liming 
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> > > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> > >
> > > Star,
> > > I don't recommend to add the additional check for performance 
> > > consideration.
> > > Because we have no idea what the input VariableName buffer is 

Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Ni, Ruiyu]

Thanks! Could you please put the comments in code?

But why do you say it's unpredictable? The behavior is to return EFI_NOT_FOUND.

Thanks/Ray

> -Original Message-
> From: Zeng, Star
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:52 PM
> To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> Before UEFI 2.6a and 2.7, the behavior is unpredictable, our *CODE* chose to
> return EFI_NOT_FOUND.
> 
> "Passing in a VariableName parameter that is neither a Null-terminated string
> nor a value that was returned on the previous call to
> GetNextVariableName() may also produce unpredictable results."
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Star
> -Original Message-
> From: Ni, Ruiyu
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:47 PM
> To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> Can you add more comments here to describe the purpose is to change the
> return status from Not Found to Invalid Parameter, and the reason of
> choosing Invalid Parameter?
> 
> Thanks/Ray
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Zeng, Star
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:41 PM
> > To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star
> > 
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> > It is to return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER when the input VariableName and
> > VendorGuid are not a valid variable to search next variable.
> > It is added from UEFI 2.7 spec.
> > Before the spec change, the code is to return EFI_NOT_FOUND at that case.
> > After the spec change, EFI_NOT_FOUND seemingly is reserved to indicate
> > the ending of searching.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Star
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ni, Ruiyu
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:37 PM
> > To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Cc: Gao, Liming 
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> > I understand your point.
> > But I do think it hurts readability.
> >
> > BTW, what does the below change does?
> >if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > +if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
> > +  //
> > +  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a
> > + name
> > and GUID of an existing variable.
> > +  //
> > +  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > +}
> >  return Status;
> >}
> >
> >
> > Thanks/Ray
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Zeng, Star
> > > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:05 AM
> > > To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star
> > > 
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> > > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> > >
> > > Ray,
> > >
> > > The code is like low hanging fruit from my practice for me, and I
> > > don't think it hurts readability although it may not bring
> > > performance improvement, it depends on how many variables in
> > > variable region, how many times of calling GetNextVariableName, and
> > > how fast of
> > GetNextVariableName.
> > >
> > > The code practice I did is on NT32 and my real platforms. Is there
> > > anyone can make sure he/she tested all the systems in the world for
> > > their
> > code?
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, I can update the patch if you insist.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Star
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ni, Ruiyu
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:08 AM
> > > To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > Cc: Gao, Liming 
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> > > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> > >
> > > Star,
> > > I don't recommend to add the additional check for performance
> > > consideration.
> > > Because we have no idea what the input VariableName buffer is like.
> > > If the VariableName is like ['\0', '?', '?', '?'] with MaxLen equals
> > > to 4, "VariableName[MaxLen-1] != 0" check is redundant.
> > > The NT32 case you met cannot represent the all possible cases.
> > > You could use the possibility theory to decide what the most
> > > efficient way
> > is.
> > >
> > > Additionally I think code readability is more important than efficiency.
> > > In this case, we need the data about the performance improvement to
> > > decide whether this check is necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ray
> > >
> > > >-Original Message-
> > > >From: Zeng, Star
> > > >Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:33 PM
> > > >To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > 

Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Zeng, Star]

Before UEFI 2.6a and 2.7, the behavior is unpredictable, our *CODE* chose to 
return EFI_NOT_FOUND.

"Passing in a VariableName parameter that is neither a Null-terminated string 
nor a value that was returned on the previous call to
GetNextVariableName() may also produce unpredictable results."



Thanks,
Star
-Original Message-
From: Ni, Ruiyu 
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:47 PM
To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Gao, Liming 
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to 
follow UEFI 2.7

Can you add more comments here to describe the purpose is to change the return 
status from Not Found to Invalid Parameter, and the reason of choosing Invalid 
Parameter?

Thanks/Ray

> -Original Message-
> From: Zeng, Star
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:41 PM
> To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> It is to return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER when the input VariableName and 
> VendorGuid are not a valid variable to search next variable.
> It is added from UEFI 2.7 spec.
> Before the spec change, the code is to return EFI_NOT_FOUND at that case.
> After the spec change, EFI_NOT_FOUND seemingly is reserved to indicate 
> the ending of searching.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Star
> -Original Message-
> From: Ni, Ruiyu
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:37 PM
> To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> I understand your point.
> But I do think it hurts readability.
> 
> BTW, what does the below change does?
>if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> +if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
> +  //
> +  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a 
> + name
> and GUID of an existing variable.
> +  //
> +  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> +}
>  return Status;
>}
> 
> 
> Thanks/Ray
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Zeng, Star
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:05 AM
> > To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> > 
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> > Ray,
> >
> > The code is like low hanging fruit from my practice for me, and I 
> > don't think it hurts readability although it may not bring 
> > performance improvement, it depends on how many variables in 
> > variable region, how many times of calling GetNextVariableName, and 
> > how fast of
> GetNextVariableName.
> >
> > The code practice I did is on NT32 and my real platforms. Is there 
> > anyone can make sure he/she tested all the systems in the world for 
> > their
> code?
> >
> >
> > Anyway, I can update the patch if you insist.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Star
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ni, Ruiyu
> > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:08 AM
> > To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Cc: Gao, Liming 
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> > Star,
> > I don't recommend to add the additional check for performance 
> > consideration.
> > Because we have no idea what the input VariableName buffer is like.
> > If the VariableName is like ['\0', '?', '?', '?'] with MaxLen equals 
> > to 4, "VariableName[MaxLen-1] != 0" check is redundant.
> > The NT32 case you met cannot represent the all possible cases.
> > You could use the possibility theory to decide what the most 
> > efficient way
> is.
> >
> > Additionally I think code readability is more important than efficiency.
> > In this case, we need the data about the performance improvement to 
> > decide whether this check is necessary.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ray
> >
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: Zeng, Star
> > >Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:33 PM
> > >To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > >Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> > >
> > >Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> > >GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> > >
> > >Ray,
> > >
> > >It is to pass the check quickly and avoid scanning all the chars in 
> > >VariableName by StrnLenS for normal boot without invalid cases.
> > >I did experiments in the code of GetNextVariableName with below 
> > >debug code for normal boot on NT32 and my real platforms, all the 
> > >cases will go
> > into the branch "xxx 2".
> > >  if (((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0))) {
> > >DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 1\n"));  } else {
> > >DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 2\n"));  }
> > >
> > >
> > 

Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Ni, Ruiyu]

Can you add more comments here to describe the purpose is to change the return 
status
from Not Found to Invalid Parameter, and the reason of choosing Invalid 
Parameter?

Thanks/Ray

> -Original Message-
> From: Zeng, Star
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:41 PM
> To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> It is to return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER when the input VariableName and
> VendorGuid are not a valid variable to search next variable.
> It is added from UEFI 2.7 spec.
> Before the spec change, the code is to return EFI_NOT_FOUND at that case.
> After the spec change, EFI_NOT_FOUND seemingly is reserved to indicate
> the ending of searching.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Star
> -Original Message-
> From: Ni, Ruiyu
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:37 PM
> To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> I understand your point.
> But I do think it hurts readability.
> 
> BTW, what does the below change does?
>if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> +if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
> +  //
> +  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name
> and GUID of an existing variable.
> +  //
> +  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> +}
>  return Status;
>}
> 
> 
> Thanks/Ray
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Zeng, Star
> > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:05 AM
> > To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star
> > 
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> > Ray,
> >
> > The code is like low hanging fruit from my practice for me, and I
> > don't think it hurts readability although it may not bring performance
> > improvement, it depends on how many variables in variable region, how
> > many times of calling GetNextVariableName, and how fast of
> GetNextVariableName.
> >
> > The code practice I did is on NT32 and my real platforms. Is there
> > anyone can make sure he/she tested all the systems in the world for their
> code?
> >
> >
> > Anyway, I can update the patch if you insist.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Star
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ni, Ruiyu
> > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:08 AM
> > To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > Cc: Gao, Liming 
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> > GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> > Star,
> > I don't recommend to add the additional check for performance
> > consideration.
> > Because we have no idea what the input VariableName buffer is like.
> > If the VariableName is like ['\0', '?', '?', '?'] with MaxLen equals
> > to 4, "VariableName[MaxLen-1] != 0" check is redundant.
> > The NT32 case you met cannot represent the all possible cases.
> > You could use the possibility theory to decide what the most efficient way
> is.
> >
> > Additionally I think code readability is more important than efficiency.
> > In this case, we need the data about the performance improvement to
> > decide whether this check is necessary.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ray
> >
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: Zeng, Star
> > >Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:33 PM
> > >To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > >Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star
> > >
> > >Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> > >GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> > >
> > >Ray,
> > >
> > >It is to pass the check quickly and avoid scanning all the chars in
> > >VariableName by StrnLenS for normal boot without invalid cases.
> > >I did experiments in the code of GetNextVariableName with below debug
> > >code for normal boot on NT32 and my real platforms, all the cases
> > >will go
> > into the branch "xxx 2".
> > >  if (((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0))) {
> > >DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 1\n"));
> > >  } else {
> > >DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 2\n"));
> > >  }
> > >
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Star
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: Ni, Ruiyu
> > >Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:20 PM
> > >To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > >Cc: Gao, Liming 
> > >Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> > >GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> > >
> > >Star,
> > >What's the benefit of this check "VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0"?
> > >I think this check "StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen) == MaxLen" should
> > >be
> > enough.
> > >
> > >Thanks/Ray
> > >
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: Zeng, Star
> > >> Sent: Friday, 

Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Zeng, Star]

It is to return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER when the input VariableName and 
VendorGuid are not a valid variable to search next variable.
It is added from UEFI 2.7 spec.
Before the spec change, the code is to return EFI_NOT_FOUND at that case.
After the spec change, EFI_NOT_FOUND seemingly is reserved to indicate the 
ending of searching.


Thanks,
Star
-Original Message-
From: Ni, Ruiyu 
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 1:37 PM
To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Gao, Liming 
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to 
follow UEFI 2.7

I understand your point.
But I do think it hurts readability.

BTW, what does the below change does?
   if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
+if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
+  //
+  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and 
GUID of an existing variable.
+  //
+  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
+}
 return Status;
   }


Thanks/Ray

> -Original Message-
> From: Zeng, Star
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:05 AM
> To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> Ray,
> 
> The code is like low hanging fruit from my practice for me, and I 
> don't think it hurts readability although it may not bring performance 
> improvement, it depends on how many variables in variable region, how 
> many times of calling GetNextVariableName, and how fast of 
> GetNextVariableName.
> 
> The code practice I did is on NT32 and my real platforms. Is there 
> anyone can make sure he/she tested all the systems in the world for their 
> code?
> 
> 
> Anyway, I can update the patch if you insist.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Star
> -Original Message-
> From: Ni, Ruiyu
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:08 AM
> To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> Star,
> I don't recommend to add the additional check for performance 
> consideration.
> Because we have no idea what the input VariableName buffer is like.
> If the VariableName is like ['\0', '?', '?', '?'] with MaxLen equals 
> to 4, "VariableName[MaxLen-1] != 0" check is redundant.
> The NT32 case you met cannot represent the all possible cases.
> You could use the possibility theory to decide what the most efficient way is.
> 
> Additionally I think code readability is more important than efficiency.
> In this case, we need the data about the performance improvement to 
> decide whether this check is necessary.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ray
> 
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Zeng, Star
> >Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:33 PM
> >To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> >Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> >
> >Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> >GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> >Ray,
> >
> >It is to pass the check quickly and avoid scanning all the chars in 
> >VariableName by StrnLenS for normal boot without invalid cases.
> >I did experiments in the code of GetNextVariableName with below debug 
> >code for normal boot on NT32 and my real platforms, all the cases 
> >will go
> into the branch "xxx 2".
> >  if (((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0))) {
> >DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 1\n"));
> >  } else {
> >DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 2\n"));
> >  }
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Star
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Ni, Ruiyu
> >Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:20 PM
> >To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> >Cc: Gao, Liming 
> >Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> >GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> >Star,
> >What's the benefit of this check "VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0"?
> >I think this check "StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen) == MaxLen" should 
> >be
> enough.
> >
> >Thanks/Ray
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Zeng, Star
> >> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:08 PM
> >> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> >> Cc: Zeng, Star ; Gao, Liming 
> >> ; Ni, Ruiyu 
> >> Subject: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
> >> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >>
> >> "The size must be large enough to fit input string supplied in 
> >> VariableName buffer" is added in the description for VariableNameSize.
> >> And two cases of EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER are added.
> >> 1. The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and
> >>GUID of an existing variable.
> >> 2. Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of
> >>the input VariableName buffer.
> >>
> >> This patch is to 

Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Ni, Ruiyu]

I understand your point.
But I do think it hurts readability.

BTW, what does the below change does?
   if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
+if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
+  //
+  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and 
GUID of an existing variable.
+  //
+  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
+}
 return Status;
   }


Thanks/Ray

> -Original Message-
> From: Zeng, Star
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:05 AM
> To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> Ray,
> 
> The code is like low hanging fruit from my practice for me, and I don't think 
> it
> hurts readability although it may not bring performance improvement, it
> depends on how many variables in variable region, how many times of calling
> GetNextVariableName, and how fast of GetNextVariableName.
> 
> The code practice I did is on NT32 and my real platforms. Is there anyone can
> make sure he/she tested all the systems in the world for their code?
> 
> 
> Anyway, I can update the patch if you insist.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Star
> -Original Message-
> From: Ni, Ruiyu
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:08 AM
> To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Gao, Liming 
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> Star,
> I don't recommend to add the additional check for performance
> consideration.
> Because we have no idea what the input VariableName buffer is like.
> If the VariableName is like ['\0', '?', '?', '?'] with MaxLen equals to 4,
> "VariableName[MaxLen-1] != 0" check is redundant.
> The NT32 case you met cannot represent the all possible cases.
> You could use the possibility theory to decide what the most efficient way is.
> 
> Additionally I think code readability is more important than efficiency.
> In this case, we need the data about the performance improvement to
> decide whether this check is necessary.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ray
> 
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Zeng, Star
> >Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:33 PM
> >To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> >Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star
> >
> >Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> >GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> >Ray,
> >
> >It is to pass the check quickly and avoid scanning all the chars in
> >VariableName by StrnLenS for normal boot without invalid cases.
> >I did experiments in the code of GetNextVariableName with below debug
> >code for normal boot on NT32 and my real platforms, all the cases will go
> into the branch "xxx 2".
> >  if (((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0))) {
> >DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 1\n"));
> >  } else {
> >DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 2\n"));
> >  }
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Star
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Ni, Ruiyu
> >Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:20 PM
> >To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> >Cc: Gao, Liming 
> >Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> >GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >
> >Star,
> >What's the benefit of this check "VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0"?
> >I think this check "StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen) == MaxLen" should be
> enough.
> >
> >Thanks/Ray
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Zeng, Star
> >> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:08 PM
> >> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> >> Cc: Zeng, Star ; Gao, Liming
> >> ; Ni, Ruiyu 
> >> Subject: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update
> >> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
> >>
> >> "The size must be large enough to fit input string supplied in
> >> VariableName buffer" is added in the description for VariableNameSize.
> >> And two cases of EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER are added.
> >> 1. The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and
> >>GUID of an existing variable.
> >> 2. Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of
> >>the input VariableName buffer.
> >>
> >> This patch is to update code to follow them.
> >>
> >> Cc: Liming Gao 
> >> Cc: Ruiyu Ni 
> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> >> Signed-off-by: Star Zeng 
> >> ---
> >>  DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c | 21 -
> >>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> >> b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c index 34b79305c871..6069cfa8fb98
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> >> +++ b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> >> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ disk. They can be changed by user. BIOS is not able
> >> to 

Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Zeng, Star]

Ray,

The code is like low hanging fruit from my practice for me, and I don't think 
it hurts readability although it may not bring performance improvement, it 
depends on how many variables in variable region, how many times of calling 
GetNextVariableName, and how fast of GetNextVariableName.

The code practice I did is on NT32 and my real platforms. Is there anyone can 
make sure he/she tested all the systems in the world for their code?


Anyway, I can update the patch if you insist.


Thanks,
Star
-Original Message-
From: Ni, Ruiyu 
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:08 AM
To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Gao, Liming 
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to 
follow UEFI 2.7

Star,
I don't recommend to add the additional check for performance consideration.
Because we have no idea what the input VariableName buffer is like.
If the VariableName is like ['\0', '?', '?', '?'] with MaxLen equals to 4, 
"VariableName[MaxLen-1] != 0" check is redundant.
The NT32 case you met cannot represent the all possible cases.
You could use the possibility theory to decide what the most efficient way is.

Additionally I think code readability is more important than efficiency.
In this case, we need the data about the performance improvement to decide 
whether this check is necessary.


Regards,
Ray

>-Original Message-
>From: Zeng, Star
>Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:33 PM
>To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
>
>Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
>GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
>
>Ray,
>
>It is to pass the check quickly and avoid scanning all the chars in 
>VariableName by StrnLenS for normal boot without invalid cases.
>I did experiments in the code of GetNextVariableName with below debug 
>code for normal boot on NT32 and my real platforms, all the cases will go into 
>the branch "xxx 2".
>  if (((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0))) {
>DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 1\n"));
>  } else {
>DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 2\n"));
>  }
>
>
>Thanks,
>Star
>-Original Message-
>From: Ni, Ruiyu
>Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:20 PM
>To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>Cc: Gao, Liming 
>Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
>GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
>
>Star,
>What's the benefit of this check "VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0"?
>I think this check "StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen) == MaxLen" should be 
>enough.
>
>Thanks/Ray
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Zeng, Star
>> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:08 PM
>> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>> Cc: Zeng, Star ; Gao, Liming 
>> ; Ni, Ruiyu 
>> Subject: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update 
>> GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7
>>
>> "The size must be large enough to fit input string supplied in 
>> VariableName buffer" is added in the description for VariableNameSize.
>> And two cases of EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER are added.
>> 1. The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and
>>GUID of an existing variable.
>> 2. Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of
>>the input VariableName buffer.
>>
>> This patch is to update code to follow them.
>>
>> Cc: Liming Gao 
>> Cc: Ruiyu Ni 
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
>> Signed-off-by: Star Zeng 
>> ---
>>  DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c | 21 -
>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c 
>> b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c index 34b79305c871..6069cfa8fb98 
>> 100644
>> --- a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
>> +++ b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
>> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ disk. They can be changed by user. BIOS is not able 
>> to protoect those.
>>  Duet trusts all meta data from disk. If variable code, variable 
>> metadata and variable  data is modified in inproper way, the behavior 
>> is undefined.
>>
>> -Copyright (c) 2006 - 2016, Intel Corporation. All rights 
>> reserved.
>> +Copyright (c) 2006 - 2017, Intel Corporation. All rights 
>> +reserved.
>>  This program and the accompanying materials  are licensed and made 
>> available under the terms and conditions of the BSD License  which 
>> accompanies this distribution.  The full text of the license may be 
>> found at @@ -1400,14 +1400,33 @@ Returns:
>>VARIABLE_POINTER_TRACK  Variable;
>>UINTN   VarNameSize;
>>EFI_STATUS  Status;
>> +  UINTN   MaxLen;
>>
>>if (VariableNameSize == NULL || VariableName == NULL || VendorGuid ==
>> NULL) {
>>  return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>>}
>>
>> +  //
>> +  // Calculate the possible maximum 

Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Ni, Ruiyu]

Star,
I don't recommend to add the additional check for performance consideration.
Because we have no idea what the input VariableName buffer is like.
If the VariableName is like ['\0', '?', '?', '?'] with MaxLen equals to 4,
"VariableName[MaxLen-1] != 0" check is redundant.
The NT32 case you met cannot represent the all possible cases.
You could use the possibility theory to decide what the most efficient way is.

Additionally I think code readability is more important than efficiency.
In this case, we need the data about the performance improvement to decide
whether this check is necessary.


Regards,
Ray

>-Original Message-
>From: Zeng, Star
>Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 5:33 PM
>To: Ni, Ruiyu ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>Cc: Gao, Liming ; Zeng, Star 
>Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to 
>follow UEFI 2.7
>
>Ray,
>
>It is to pass the check quickly and avoid scanning all the chars in 
>VariableName by StrnLenS for normal boot without invalid
>cases.
>I did experiments in the code of GetNextVariableName with below debug code for 
>normal boot on NT32 and my real
>platforms, all the cases will go into the branch "xxx 2".
>  if (((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0))) {
>DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 1\n"));
>  } else {
>DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 2\n"));
>  }
>
>
>Thanks,
>Star
>-Original Message-
>From: Ni, Ruiyu
>Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:20 PM
>To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>Cc: Gao, Liming 
>Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to 
>follow UEFI 2.7
>
>Star,
>What's the benefit of this check "VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0"?
>I think this check "StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen) == MaxLen" should be 
>enough.
>
>Thanks/Ray
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Zeng, Star
>> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:08 PM
>> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>> Cc: Zeng, Star ; Gao, Liming ;
>> Ni, Ruiyu 
>> Subject: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName
>> to follow UEFI 2.7
>>
>> "The size must be large enough to fit input string supplied in
>> VariableName buffer" is added in the description for VariableNameSize.
>> And two cases of EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER are added.
>> 1. The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and
>>GUID of an existing variable.
>> 2. Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of
>>the input VariableName buffer.
>>
>> This patch is to update code to follow them.
>>
>> Cc: Liming Gao 
>> Cc: Ruiyu Ni 
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
>> Signed-off-by: Star Zeng 
>> ---
>>  DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c | 21 -
>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
>> b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
>> index 34b79305c871..6069cfa8fb98 100644
>> --- a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
>> +++ b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
>> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ disk. They can be changed by user. BIOS is not able to
>> protoect those.
>>  Duet trusts all meta data from disk. If variable code, variable metadata and
>> variable
>>  data is modified in inproper way, the behavior is undefined.
>>
>> -Copyright (c) 2006 - 2016, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
>> +Copyright (c) 2006 - 2017, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
>>  This program and the accompanying materials
>>  are licensed and made available under the terms and conditions of the BSD
>> License
>>  which accompanies this distribution.  The full text of the license may be
>> found at
>> @@ -1400,14 +1400,33 @@ Returns:
>>VARIABLE_POINTER_TRACK  Variable;
>>UINTN   VarNameSize;
>>EFI_STATUS  Status;
>> +  UINTN   MaxLen;
>>
>>if (VariableNameSize == NULL || VariableName == NULL || VendorGuid ==
>> NULL) {
>>  return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>>}
>>
>> +  //
>> +  // Calculate the possible maximum length of name string, including the 
>> Null
>> terminator.
>> +  //
>> +  MaxLen = *VariableNameSize / sizeof (CHAR16);
>> +  if ((MaxLen == 0) ||
>> +  ((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0) && (StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen)
>> == MaxLen))) {
>> +//
>> +// Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of 
>> the
>> input VariableName buffer.
>> +//
>> +return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>> +  }
>> +
>>Status = FindVariable (VariableName, VendorGuid, );
>>
>>if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
>> +if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
>> +  //
>> +  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name
>> and GUID of an existing variable.
>> +  //
>> +  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>> +}
>>  return Status;
>> 

Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Zeng, Star]

Ray,

It is to pass the check quickly and avoid scanning all the chars in 
VariableName by StrnLenS for normal boot without invalid cases.
I did experiments in the code of GetNextVariableName with below debug code for 
normal boot on NT32 and my real platforms, all the cases will go into the 
branch "xxx 2".
  if (((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0))) {
DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 1\n"));
  } else {
DEBUG ((DEBUG_INFO, "xxx 2\n"));
  }


Thanks,
Star
-Original Message-
From: Ni, Ruiyu 
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:20 PM
To: Zeng, Star ; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Cc: Gao, Liming 
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to 
follow UEFI 2.7

Star,
What's the benefit of this check "VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0"?
I think this check "StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen) == MaxLen" should be enough.

Thanks/Ray

> -Original Message-
> From: Zeng, Star
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:08 PM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Zeng, Star ; Gao, Liming ;
> Ni, Ruiyu 
> Subject: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName
> to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> "The size must be large enough to fit input string supplied in
> VariableName buffer" is added in the description for VariableNameSize.
> And two cases of EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER are added.
> 1. The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and
>GUID of an existing variable.
> 2. Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of
>the input VariableName buffer.
> 
> This patch is to update code to follow them.
> 
> Cc: Liming Gao 
> Cc: Ruiyu Ni 
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> Signed-off-by: Star Zeng 
> ---
>  DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c | 21 -
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> index 34b79305c871..6069cfa8fb98 100644
> --- a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> +++ b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ disk. They can be changed by user. BIOS is not able to
> protoect those.
>  Duet trusts all meta data from disk. If variable code, variable metadata and
> variable
>  data is modified in inproper way, the behavior is undefined.
> 
> -Copyright (c) 2006 - 2016, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
> +Copyright (c) 2006 - 2017, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
>  This program and the accompanying materials
>  are licensed and made available under the terms and conditions of the BSD
> License
>  which accompanies this distribution.  The full text of the license may be
> found at
> @@ -1400,14 +1400,33 @@ Returns:
>VARIABLE_POINTER_TRACK  Variable;
>UINTN   VarNameSize;
>EFI_STATUS  Status;
> +  UINTN   MaxLen;
> 
>if (VariableNameSize == NULL || VariableName == NULL || VendorGuid ==
> NULL) {
>  return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>}
> 
> +  //
> +  // Calculate the possible maximum length of name string, including the Null
> terminator.
> +  //
> +  MaxLen = *VariableNameSize / sizeof (CHAR16);
> +  if ((MaxLen == 0) ||
> +  ((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0) && (StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen)
> == MaxLen))) {
> +//
> +// Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of 
> the
> input VariableName buffer.
> +//
> +return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> +  }
> +
>Status = FindVariable (VariableName, VendorGuid, );
> 
>if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> +if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
> +  //
> +  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name
> and GUID of an existing variable.
> +  //
> +  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> +}
>  return Status;
>}
> 
> --
> 2.7.0.windows.1

___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Ni, Ruiyu]

Star,
What's the benefit of this check "VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0"?
I think this check "StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen) == MaxLen" should be enough.

Thanks/Ray

> -Original Message-
> From: Zeng, Star
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 4:08 PM
> To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Zeng, Star ; Gao, Liming ;
> Ni, Ruiyu 
> Subject: [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName
> to follow UEFI 2.7
> 
> "The size must be large enough to fit input string supplied in
> VariableName buffer" is added in the description for VariableNameSize.
> And two cases of EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER are added.
> 1. The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and
>GUID of an existing variable.
> 2. Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of
>the input VariableName buffer.
> 
> This patch is to update code to follow them.
> 
> Cc: Liming Gao 
> Cc: Ruiyu Ni 
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> Signed-off-by: Star Zeng 
> ---
>  DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c | 21 -
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> index 34b79305c871..6069cfa8fb98 100644
> --- a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> +++ b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ disk. They can be changed by user. BIOS is not able to
> protoect those.
>  Duet trusts all meta data from disk. If variable code, variable metadata and
> variable
>  data is modified in inproper way, the behavior is undefined.
> 
> -Copyright (c) 2006 - 2016, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
> +Copyright (c) 2006 - 2017, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
>  This program and the accompanying materials
>  are licensed and made available under the terms and conditions of the BSD
> License
>  which accompanies this distribution.  The full text of the license may be
> found at
> @@ -1400,14 +1400,33 @@ Returns:
>VARIABLE_POINTER_TRACK  Variable;
>UINTN   VarNameSize;
>EFI_STATUS  Status;
> +  UINTN   MaxLen;
> 
>if (VariableNameSize == NULL || VariableName == NULL || VendorGuid ==
> NULL) {
>  return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>}
> 
> +  //
> +  // Calculate the possible maximum length of name string, including the Null
> terminator.
> +  //
> +  MaxLen = *VariableNameSize / sizeof (CHAR16);
> +  if ((MaxLen == 0) ||
> +  ((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0) && (StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen)
> == MaxLen))) {
> +//
> +// Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of 
> the
> input VariableName buffer.
> +//
> +return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> +  }
> +
>Status = FindVariable (VariableName, VendorGuid, );
> 
>if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> +if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
> +  //
> +  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name
> and GUID of an existing variable.
> +  //
> +  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> +}
>  return Status;
>}
> 
> --
> 2.7.0.windows.1

___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

[edk2] [PATCH V2 3/3] DuetPkg FsVariable: Update GetNextVariableName to follow UEFI 2.7

[Star Zeng]

"The size must be large enough to fit input string supplied in
VariableName buffer" is added in the description for VariableNameSize.
And two cases of EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER are added.
1. The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and
   GUID of an existing variable.
2. Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of
   the input VariableName buffer.

This patch is to update code to follow them.

Cc: Liming Gao 
Cc: Ruiyu Ni 
Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Star Zeng 
---
 DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c | 21 -
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
index 34b79305c871..6069cfa8fb98 100644
--- a/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
+++ b/DuetPkg/FSVariable/FSVariable.c
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ disk. They can be changed by user. BIOS is not able to protoect 
those.
 Duet trusts all meta data from disk. If variable code, variable metadata and 
variable
 data is modified in inproper way, the behavior is undefined.
 
-Copyright (c) 2006 - 2016, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
+Copyright (c) 2006 - 2017, Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
 This program and the accompanying materials
 are licensed and made available under the terms and conditions of the BSD 
License
 which accompanies this distribution.  The full text of the license may be 
found at
@@ -1400,14 +1400,33 @@ Returns:
   VARIABLE_POINTER_TRACK  Variable;
   UINTN   VarNameSize;
   EFI_STATUS  Status;
+  UINTN   MaxLen;
 
   if (VariableNameSize == NULL || VariableName == NULL || VendorGuid == NULL) {
 return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
   }
 
+  //
+  // Calculate the possible maximum length of name string, including the Null 
terminator.
+  //
+  MaxLen = *VariableNameSize / sizeof (CHAR16);
+  if ((MaxLen == 0) ||
+  ((VariableName[MaxLen - 1] != 0) && (StrnLenS (VariableName, MaxLen) == 
MaxLen))) {
+//
+// Null-terminator is not found in the first VariableNameSize bytes of the 
input VariableName buffer.
+//
+return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
+  }
+
   Status = FindVariable (VariableName, VendorGuid, );
 
   if (Variable.CurrPtr == NULL || EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
+if (VariableName[0] != 0) {
+  //
+  // The input values of VariableName and VendorGuid are not a name and 
GUID of an existing variable.
+  //
+  Status = EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
+}
 return Status;
   }
 
-- 
2.7.0.windows.1

___
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel