From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=192.55.52.88; helo=mga01.intel.com; envelope-from=ruiyu.ni@intel.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E7D221163DEA for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 19:05:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Oct 2018 19:05:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,358,1534834800"; d="scan'208";a="79841280" Received: from ray-dev.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.239.9.11]) ([10.239.9.11]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2018 19:05:26 -0700 To: Laszlo Ersek , "Bi, Dandan" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Cc: "Gao, Liming" , "Zeng, Star" References: <20181008012915.5968-1-dandan.bi@intel.com> <3C0D5C461C9E904E8F62152F6274C0BB3BBC2121@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <8e30eaaa-e794-8019-0c4a-87b96547f11a@redhat.com> From: "Ni, Ruiyu" Message-ID: <87eb8805-b849-4573-e0b1-81fd41f06745@Intel.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:06:34 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8e30eaaa-e794-8019-0c4a-87b96547f11a@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [patch] MdeModulePkg/HiiDB: Fix incorrect structure convention for checkbox X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 02:05:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/8/2018 11:15 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 10/08/18 16:32, Bi, Dandan wrote: >>> >>> what were the practical consequences (symptoms) of this issue? Did some >>> checkboxes not work? (I'm asking because SecureBootConfigDxe uses some >>> checkboxes.) >> >> 1. The bug is in function "UpdateDefaultSettingInFormPackage()" which is to update the default setting of some HII Questions in the IFR binary data. So it only has impact when platform overrides default setting in HII VarStore through DynamicHii PCD setting in Platform DSC file. If platform doesn't override default setting, it has no impact. >> >> 2. The implementation updates the "Flags" filed in the EFI_IFR_CHECKBOX structure to update the default setting of checkbox. >> If using "IfrCheckBox = (EFI_IFR_CHECKBOX *) (IfrOpHdr + 1);" when wants to update the " Flags" filed in checkbox, but in fact it will update the opcode binary data(opcode binary length) behind checkbox binary. >> And then it will cause Browser can't parse the IFR binary data correctly. And then the possible symptom is that some HII Question and forms may be not parsed and then cannot be shown. > > Thanks! I've copied this into the BZ. Has this patch been pushed? If not, maybe you could also copy the above description in the commit message. A commit message that describes what to be fixed is more meaningful. > > Laszlo > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel > -- Thanks, Ray