From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
Matt Fleming
<matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Leif Lindholm
<leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] efi: arm64: abort boot on pending SError
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 16:46:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160701154612.GC17071@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9Pk6xbUUMisAMhd4rpoYHA+wjzrZGkyEUXPdx_TaniVQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 05:31:33PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 1 July 2016 at 17:22, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 05:01:30PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> It is the firmware's job to clear any pending SErrors before entering
> >> the kernel. On UEFI, we can fail gracefully rather than panic during
> >> early boot, so check for this condition in the stub.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> >
> > An SError could be triggered either asynchronously by FW, or as a result
> > of our actions at any point after this, e.g. due to the filesystem
> > accesses made to load an initrd.
> >
> > So in practice, is checking here useful? Have we seen FW with masked but
> > pending SError at the point we enter the stub rather than that SError
> > being triggered later,?
>
> Yes. EDK2 keeps SError masked throughout its execution by default, and
> so any condition that triggered an SError up till this point is likely
> to still be pending, and blow up the kernel as soon as it unmasks it.
Ok.
> > I'm also not sure what this means for CPER, which may use SError to
> > signal to the OS. It's possible that the UEFI implementation polls
> > ISR_EL1 itself, and handles SError appropriately internally, or that the
> > OS can later deal with the SError based on CPER and friends.
>
> Currently, the kernel panics on an SError, and so what the kernel
> should do once we start dealing with them in a more sophisticated way
> is hypothetical at the moment. Once that code arrives, it may revert
> this change, but for now, being dropped back into the UEFI shell does
> sound more appealing than panic early imo.
Logging something while the UART is available is certainly appealing.
As you say, we can change this later if/when we have more advanced
SError handling. So modulo my prior comments, I guess this is fine for
now.
Thanks,
Mark.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] efi: arm64: abort boot on pending SError
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 16:46:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160701154612.GC17071@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9Pk6xbUUMisAMhd4rpoYHA+wjzrZGkyEUXPdx_TaniVQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 05:31:33PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 1 July 2016 at 17:22, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 05:01:30PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> It is the firmware's job to clear any pending SErrors before entering
> >> the kernel. On UEFI, we can fail gracefully rather than panic during
> >> early boot, so check for this condition in the stub.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> >
> > An SError could be triggered either asynchronously by FW, or as a result
> > of our actions at any point after this, e.g. due to the filesystem
> > accesses made to load an initrd.
> >
> > So in practice, is checking here useful? Have we seen FW with masked but
> > pending SError at the point we enter the stub rather than that SError
> > being triggered later,?
>
> Yes. EDK2 keeps SError masked throughout its execution by default, and
> so any condition that triggered an SError up till this point is likely
> to still be pending, and blow up the kernel as soon as it unmasks it.
Ok.
> > I'm also not sure what this means for CPER, which may use SError to
> > signal to the OS. It's possible that the UEFI implementation polls
> > ISR_EL1 itself, and handles SError appropriately internally, or that the
> > OS can later deal with the SError based on CPER and friends.
>
> Currently, the kernel panics on an SError, and so what the kernel
> should do once we start dealing with them in a more sophisticated way
> is hypothetical at the moment. Once that code arrives, it may revert
> this change, but for now, being dropped back into the UEFI shell does
> sound more appealing than panic early imo.
Logging something while the UART is available is certainly appealing.
As you say, we can change this later if/when we have more advanced
SError handling. So modulo my prior comments, I guess this is fine for
now.
Thanks,
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-01 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-01 15:01 [PATCH 1/2] efi: arm64: abort boot on pending SError Ard Biesheuvel
2016-07-01 15:01 ` Ard Biesheuvel
[not found] ` <1467385291-9880-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2016-07-01 15:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: document that pending SErrors are not allowed at kernel entry Ard Biesheuvel
2016-07-01 15:01 ` Ard Biesheuvel
[not found] ` <1467385291-9880-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2016-07-01 15:25 ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-01 15:25 ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-01 15:34 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-07-01 15:34 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-07-01 15:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] efi: arm64: abort boot on pending SError Mark Rutland
2016-07-01 15:22 ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-01 15:31 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-07-01 15:31 ` Ard Biesheuvel
[not found] ` <CAKv+Gu9Pk6xbUUMisAMhd4rpoYHA+wjzrZGkyEUXPdx_TaniVQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2016-07-01 15:46 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2016-07-01 15:46 ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-02 10:14 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-07-02 10:14 ` Ard Biesheuvel
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=20160701154612.GC17071@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland-5wv7dgnigg8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org \
/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.