From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Ivan Hu <ivan.hu@canonical.com>
Cc: ardb@kernel.org, ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org, tglx@kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Fix graceful fault handling after FPU softirq changes
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:52:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260501055252.GA35316@sol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260430074107.27051-1-ivan.hu@canonical.com>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 03:41:07PM +0800, Ivan Hu wrote:
> Since commit d02198550423 ("x86/fpu: Improve crypto performance by
> making kernel-mode FPU reliably usable in softirqs"), kernel_fpu_begin()
> calls fpregs_lock() which uses local_bh_disable() instead of the
> previous preempt_disable(). This sets SOFTIRQ_OFFSET in preempt_count
> during the entire EFI runtime service call, causing in_interrupt() to
> return true in normal task context.
>
> The graceful page fault handler efi_crash_gracefully_on_page_fault()
> uses in_interrupt() to bail out for faults in real interrupt context.
> With SOFTIRQ_OFFSET now set, the handler always bails out, leaving EFI
> firmware page faults unhandled. This escalates to die() which also sees
> in_interrupt() as true and calls panic("Fatal exception in interrupt"),
> resulting in a hard system freeze. On systems with buggy firmware that
> triggers page faults during EFI runtime calls (e.g., accessing unmapped
> memory in GetTime()), this causes an unrecoverable hang instead of the
> expected graceful EFI_ABORTED recovery.
>
> Fix by replacing in_interrupt() with in_hardirq() || in_nmi(). This
> preserves the original intent of bailing for genuine hardware interrupt
> or NMI faults, while no longer falsely triggering from the FPU code
> path's local_bh_disable(). This is safe because softirqs cannot run
> during EFI calls (they are explicitly blocked by fpregs_lock()), so
> they can never be the source of a page fault in this context.
>
> Fixes: d02198550423 ("x86/fpu: Improve crypto performance by making kernel-mode FPU reliably usable in softirqs")
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Hu <ivan.hu@canonical.com>
Sorry for the trouble here.
Can you check the Sashiko review at
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260430074107.27051-1-ivan.hu%40canonical.com
? The two things it found look legitimate.
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-01 5:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-30 7:41 [PATCH] x86/efi: Fix graceful fault handling after FPU softirq changes Ivan Hu
2026-04-30 8:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-05-01 5:52 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2026-05-01 6:38 ` 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=20260501055252.GA35316@sol \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=ivan.hu@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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.