Re: [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: don't ASSERT on 'BootNext' varname

["Zeng, Star" <star.zeng@intel.com>]

Thanks for confirming the urgency.

I have no strong motivation to keep/remove the ASSERT, I would like Ruiyu to argue and make the decision.
I mainly want the issue (the code ends up calling this function(EfiBootManagerIsValidLoadOptionVariableName) on L"BootNext") could be root caused.


Thanks,
Star
-----Original Message-----
From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:54 PM
To: Zeng, Star <star.zeng@intel.com>
Cc: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>; leif.lindholm@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: don't ASSERT on 'BootNext' varname

On 4 October 2017 at 14:49, Zeng, Star <star.zeng@intel.com> wrote:
> Creating Boot000@ with gEfiGlobalVariableGuid can not succeed as it 
> will be rejected by 
> MdeModulePkg/Library/VarCheckUefiLib/VarCheckUefiLib.inf that will check the VariableName against UEFI spec “Table 13. Global Variables”
> if the VendorGuid is gEfiGlobalVariableGuid.
>
>
>
> I would suspect there is a bug at other place if the code ends up 
> calling this function(EfiBootManagerIsValidLoadOptionVariableName) on L"BootNext".
>

That still does not mean you should ASSERT() here. The state of the variable store != the internals of the code, and so it should be considered external input to some extent. ASSERTs are meant to catch programming errors, not errors in the varstore image.


>
> Ard,
>
> Is the fix urgent or not for you?
>

Not really. But fwupdate is shipping as part of many distros, so I guess others may run into it as well.

> I may want to wait for Ruiyu’s back to take some look at the detail of it.
>

That is fine.

> At the same time, you may help check the code flow in some detail if 
> you have free time, I think that will be helpful. J
>

OK.