From nobody Mon Feb 9 01:20:01 2026 Delivered-To: importer@patchew.org Received-SPF: pass (zoho.com: domain of groups.io designates 66.175.222.12 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.175.222.12; envelope-from=bounce+27952+47445+1787277+3901457@groups.io; helo=web01.groups.io; Authentication-Results: mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass; spf=pass (zoho.com: domain of groups.io designates 66.175.222.12 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce+27952+47445+1787277+3901457@groups.io; dmarc=fail(p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1568775986; cv=none; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc; b=NVXgPQJgWQnywlmW8Jp0qqCj57C/X45/f3H5bd4Y/OaxWvaA9gMq3sfk4Q/R4JDWy9ww8Ar8nJbcuzzPhhfH9/F/UsKqVpnrpn1a+5XTESqqI5L6sKDS5jB9pvDRXhrLa8eamyLuNKCYf+BfPQ8uWKkBf98KPDT8f+ZxoyjOeqk= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc; t=1568775986; h=Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Sender:Subject:To:ARC-Authentication-Results; bh=j9AqGeSNyNHJq5vsUQ80PW29CojaXXqX+juQjhbJ294=; b=EemhD6zjK2wYivDfba47QK+a8/s/uncq9y+BQK/ors9ws0YWgyKiilijgUnfrkHHgSqiHvR5MAwVtOBo4cxXdrL8WD29hHjAlqQKtONcr8ZGBeg65NtXTToVULS0wy60wdqvr5x71wG5ohoHL1xBZeQTWE+oojH1uSKNsC2C5gA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zoho.com; dkim=pass; spf=pass (zoho.com: domain of groups.io designates 66.175.222.12 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce+27952+47445+1787277+3901457@groups.io; dmarc=fail header.from= (p=none dis=none) header.from= Received: from web01.groups.io (web01.groups.io [66.175.222.12]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1568775986776575.918917956718; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: X-Received: by 127.0.0.2 with SMTP id cOZ1YY1788612xE7eqc1RUr7; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:06:26 -0700 X-Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by groups.io with SMTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:06:26 -0700 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Sep 2019 20:06:25 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,519,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="338192295" X-Received: from shwdeopenpsi114.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.239.157.147]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Sep 2019 20:06:24 -0700 From: "Dandan Bi" To: devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: Jian J Wang , Hao A Wu , Liming Gao , Laszlo Ersek Subject: [edk2-devel] [patch v2 2/5] MdeModulePkg/DxeCapsuleLibFmp: Unload image on EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:05:54 +0800 Message-Id: <20190918030557.55256-3-dandan.bi@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20190918030557.55256-1-dandan.bi@intel.com> References: <20190918030557.55256-1-dandan.bi@intel.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Unsubscribe: Sender: devel@edk2.groups.io List-Id: Mailing-List: list devel@edk2.groups.io; contact devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io,dandan.bi@intel.com X-Gm-Message-State: YTtDvN17cZT5UaKdsSqygv5ex1787277AA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; q=dns/txt; s=20140610; t=1568775986; bh=YqbNPJEcAe/U3wyXRcgoh7FCP+LPVidU9wIemjfT2NM=; h=Cc:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To; b=tkcP6VDdQwiHlanDXks73HiSsSobgZcVH99+XekyGLjC++vZXiWKex3YZTQJ/E+jo7/ GifQdOYOVv95ze+KsdEc00LHAN6VOVi5yZh03mx6BALA4dVF1+0FKGjI49nlZMnzypVBe 6vZGj3OtmxgfXlW+vdSRObD2NI46CAEIygw= X-ZohoMail-DKIM: pass (identity @groups.io) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" For the LoadImage() boot service, with EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION retval, the Image was loaded and an ImageHandle was created with a valid EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL, but the image can not be started right now. This follows UEFI Spec. But if the caller of LoadImage() doesn't have the option to defer the execution of an image, we can not treat EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION like any other LoadImage() error, we should unload image for the EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION to avoid resource leak. This patch is to do error handling for EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION explicitly for the callers in DxeCapsuleLibFmp which don't have the policy to defer the execution of the image. Cc: Jian J Wang Cc: Hao A Wu Cc: Liming Gao Cc: Laszlo Ersek REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1992 Signed-off-by: Dandan Bi Reviewed-by: Hao A Wu Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daude --- MdeModulePkg/Library/DxeCapsuleLibFmp/DxeCapsuleLib.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Library/DxeCapsuleLibFmp/DxeCapsuleLib.c b/MdeMod= ulePkg/Library/DxeCapsuleLibFmp/DxeCapsuleLib.c index 95aa9de087..5dda561a04 100644 --- a/MdeModulePkg/Library/DxeCapsuleLibFmp/DxeCapsuleLib.c +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Library/DxeCapsuleLibFmp/DxeCapsuleLib.c @@ -1028,10 +1028,19 @@ StartFmpImage ( ImageSize, &ImageHandle ); DEBUG((DEBUG_INFO, "FmpCapsule: LoadImage - %r\n", Status)); if (EFI_ERROR(Status)) { + // + // With EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION retval, the Image was loaded and an Ima= geHandle was created + // with a valid EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL, but the image can not be st= arted right now. + // If the caller doesn't have the option to defer the execution of an = image, we should + // unload image for the EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION to avoid resource leak. + // + if (Status =3D=3D EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION) { + gBS->UnloadImage (ImageHandle); + } FreePool(DriverDevicePath); return Status; } =20 DEBUG((DEBUG_INFO, "FmpCapsule: StartImage ...\n")); --=20 2.18.0.windows.1 -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#47445): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/47445 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/34184007/1787277 Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [importer@patchew.org] -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-