From: Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EFI changes for v3.18
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:07:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140929140723.GA4788@console-pimps.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140929124321.GB18825@gmail.com>
On Mon, 29 Sep, at 02:43:21PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org> wrote:
>
> > * Implement new EFI runtime lock which is required by the UEFI
> > specification - Ard Biesheuvel
>
> Firstly, under what circumstances can EFI call parallelism happen
> currently? Most of the EFI code runs during early bootup, which
> is serialized.
Access to EFI variables needs to be serialized against each other, which
we currently do with the __efivars->lock spinlock and the accessor
functions in drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c. Additionally on arm64, access
to the EFI time functions needs to be serialized with access to the
variable functions (we don't use the time stuff on x86).
> Secondly, this locking pattern looks pretty disgusting:
>
> @@ -94,7 +187,17 @@ static efi_status_t virt_efi_set_variable(efi_char16_t *name,
> unsigned long data_size,
> void *data)
> {
> - return efi_call_virt(set_variable, name, vendor, attr, data_size, data);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + efi_status_t status;
> + bool __in_nmi = efi_in_nmi();
> +
> + if (!__in_nmi)
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&efi_runtime_lock, flags);
> + status = efi_call_virt(set_variable, name, vendor, attr, data_size,
> + data);
> + if (!__in_nmi)
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&efi_runtime_lock, flags);
> + return status;
> }
>
> and that's repeated in virt_efi_query_variable_info() as well.
>
> and that's the explanation given:
>
> +/*
> + * Some runtime services calls can be reentrant under NMI, even if the table
> + * above says they are not. (source: UEFI Specification v2.4A)
> + *
> + * Table 32. Functions that may be called after Machine Check, INIT and NMI
> + *
> +----------------------------+------------------------------------------+
> + * | Function | Called after Machine Check, INIT and NMI |
> + *
> +----------------------------+------------------------------------------+
> + * | GetTime() | Yes, even if previously busy. |
> + * | GetVariable() | Yes, even if previously busy |
> + * | GetNextVariableName() | Yes, even if previously busy |
> + * | QueryVariableInfo() | Yes, even if previously busy |
> + * | SetVariable() | Yes, even if previously busy |
> + * | UpdateCapsule() | Yes, even if previously busy |
> + * | QueryCapsuleCapabilities()| Yes, even if previously busy |
> + * | ResetSystem() | Yes, even if previously busy |
> + *
> +----------------------------+------------------------------------------+
> + *
> + * In order to prevent deadlocks under NMI, the wrappers for these functions
> + * may only grab the efi_runtime_lock or rtc_lock spinlocks if !efi_in_nmi().
> + * However, not all of the services listed are reachable through NMI code paths,
> + * so the the special handling as suggested by the UEFI spec is only implemented
> + * for QueryVariableInfo() and SetVariable(), as these can be reached in NMI
> + * context through efi_pstore_write().
>
> Are pstore calls into the EFI runtime reentrant?
Yes, the pstore functions are reentrant in the case of being invoked
from the kmsg_dumper callback via pstore_dump(), which for the EFI
pstore backend means we call efi_pstore_write() -> efi_entry_set_safe().
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-29 14:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-28 20:27 [GIT PULL] EFI changes for v3.18 Matt Fleming
2014-09-28 20:27 ` Matt Fleming
2014-09-29 12:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-09-29 14:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-29 15:00 ` Matt Fleming
2014-09-29 15:00 ` Matt Fleming
2014-09-29 15:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <20140929150009.GA9102-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>
2014-10-06 9:26 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2014-10-06 9:26 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2014-09-29 14:07 ` Matt Fleming [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140929140723.GA4788@console-pimps.org \
--to=matt@console-pimps.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.