Re: [PATCH] efi_loader: fix use of uninit ialized guid in variable enumeration loops

Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Am 28. Juli 2026 18:49:48 MESZ schrieb Scott Moser <[email protected]>:
>efi_bootmgr_delete_invalid_boot_option(), eficonfig_show_boot_selection(),
>and eficonfig_create_change_boot_order_entry() each enumerate all EFI
>variables by repeatedly calling efi_next_variable_name() in a loop,
>passing the same efi_guid_t as both input and output. GetNextVariableName()
>needs the vendor GUID returned by the previous call, together with the
>variable name it returned, to know where to resume.
>
>In each of these loops the efi_guid_t was declared inside the loop body,
>so a new instance comes into scope on every iteration. Relying on it to
>still hold the previous iteration's value depends on the compiler reusing
>the same stack slot across iterations, which is undefined behavior. With
>a compiler that zero-initializes locals by default (e.g. clang, or gcc
>configured with -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero), the GUID is cleared on
>every iteration, so the lookup of the variable name returned by the
>previous call fails and efi_init_obj_list() aborts:
>
>  Cannot initialize UEFI sub-system
>  ** Booting bootflow ... with efi
>  Boot failed (err=-22)
>
>Move the efi_guid_t declarations out of the loops so the value written
>by the previous efi_next_variable_name() call is preserved across
>iterations.
>
>Fixes: 140a8959d48f ("eficonfig: use efi_get_next_variable_name_int()")
>Signed-off-by: Scott Moser <[email protected]>
>---
> cmd/eficonfig.c              | 4 ++--
> lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/cmd/eficonfig.c b/cmd/eficonfig.c
>index 4d060e3007c..cd66f05fb7a 100644
>--- a/cmd/eficonfig.c
>+++ b/cmd/eficonfig.c
>@@ -1844,6 +1844,7 @@ static efi_status_t eficonfig_show_boot_selection(unsigned int *selected)
> 	struct efimenu *efi_menu;
> 	struct list_head *pos, *n;
> 	struct eficonfig_entry *entry;
>+	efi_guid_t guid = {};
> 
> 	efi_menu = calloc(1, sizeof(struct efimenu));
> 	if (!efi_menu)
>@@ -1872,7 +1873,6 @@ static efi_status_t eficonfig_show_boot_selection(unsigned int *selected)
> 	var_name16[0] = 0;
> 	for (;;) {
> 		int index;
>-		efi_guid_t guid;
> 
> 		ret = efi_next_variable_name(&buf_size, &var_name16, &guid);
> 		if (ret == EFI_NOT_FOUND)
>@@ -2245,6 +2245,7 @@ static efi_status_t eficonfig_create_change_boot_order_entry(struct efimenu *efi
> 	u16 *var_name16 = NULL;
> 	efi_uintn_t size, buf_size;
> 	struct eficonfig_save_boot_order_data *save_data;
>+	efi_guid_t guid = {};

Thank you for addressing this issue.

According to the UEFI specification:

"When VariableName is a pointer to a Null character, VendorGuid is ignored."

Initialization of the GUID is not needed and should be avoided to reduce the code size.

> 
> 	/* list the load option in the order of BootOrder variable */
> 	for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
>@@ -2265,7 +2266,6 @@ static efi_status_t eficonfig_create_change_boot_order_entry(struct efimenu *efi
> 	var_name16[0] = 0;
> 	for (;;) {
> 		int index;
>-		efi_guid_t guid;
> 
> 		if (efi_menu->count >= EFICONFIG_ENTRY_NUM_MAX - 2)
> 			break;
>diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c
>index 8c9a9b5eb56..3ee47000d23 100644
>--- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c
>+++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c
>@@ -934,6 +934,7 @@ static efi_status_t efi_bootmgr_delete_invalid_boot_option(struct eficonfig_medi
> 	efi_status_t ret = EFI_SUCCESS;
> 	u16 *delete_index_list = NULL, *p;
> 	efi_uintn_t buf_size;
>+	efi_guid_t guid = {};

ditto

Best regards

Heinrich


> 
> 	buf_size = 128;
> 	var_name16 = malloc(buf_size);
>@@ -943,7 +944,6 @@ static efi_status_t efi_bootmgr_delete_invalid_boot_option(struct eficonfig_medi
> 	var_name16[0] = 0;
> 	for (;;) {
> 		int index;
>-		efi_guid_t guid;
> 		efi_uintn_t tmp;
> 
> 		ret = efi_next_variable_name(&buf_size, &var_name16, &guid);
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.