From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 209.132.183.28, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by groups.io with SMTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 05:46:14 -0700
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 345EB3082133;
	Thu, 26 Sep 2019 12:46:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-49.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.49])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3292E6012E;
	Thu, 26 Sep 2019 12:46:12 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 27/35] SecurityPkg: stop abusing EFI_EVENT for protocol notify registration
From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
To: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>, Jian Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>,
 Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
Cc: edk2-devel-groups-io <devel@edk2.groups.io>
Reply-To: devel@edk2.groups.io, lersek@redhat.com
References: <20190917194935.24322-1-lersek@redhat.com>
 <20190917194935.24322-28-lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <9b7a8ba8-8e3c-0698-e12f-fff8fd010c8a@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:46:12 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190917194935.24322-28-lersek@redhat.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.42]); Thu, 26 Sep 2019 12:46:14 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chao, Jian, Jiewen,

can you please review this patch?

Thanks,
Laszlo


On 09/17/19 21:49, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> EfiCreateProtocolNotifyEvent() takes a (VOID**) for "Registration",
> similarly to gBS->RegisterProtocolNotify(). We should pass the address of
> an actual pointer-to-VOID, and not the address of an EFI_EVENT. EFI_EVENT
> just happens to be specified as (VOID*), and has nothing to do with the
> registration.
> 
> This change is a no-op in practice; it's a semantic improvement.
> 
> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@intel.com>
> Cc: Jian Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>     build-tested only
> 
>  SecurityPkg/HddPassword/HddPasswordDxe.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/SecurityPkg/HddPassword/HddPasswordDxe.c b/SecurityPkg/HddPassword/HddPasswordDxe.c
> index b0d795b6597f..051e64091d7f 100644
> --- a/SecurityPkg/HddPassword/HddPasswordDxe.c
> +++ b/SecurityPkg/HddPassword/HddPasswordDxe.c
> @@ -2770,7 +2770,7 @@ HddPasswordDxeInit (
>  {
>    EFI_STATUS                     Status;
>    HDD_PASSWORD_DXE_PRIVATE_DATA  *Private;
> -  EFI_EVENT                      Registration;
> +  VOID                           *Registration;
>    EFI_EVENT                      EndOfDxeEvent;
>    EDKII_VARIABLE_LOCK_PROTOCOL   *VariableLock;
>  
>