From: matt@codeblueprint.co.uk (Matt Fleming)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCHv3 0/5] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:03:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160425160309.GD2829@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1461591994-14918-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
On Mon, 25 Apr, at 02:46:29PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Note: this is largely a rework of the final patch from v2 [2], which now has a
> per-arch component (and hence additional patches). The rest of v2 has already
> been picked up, and hence dropped from this posting.
>
> Some firmware erroneously unmask IRQs (and potentially other architecture
> specific exceptions) during runtime services functions, in violation of both
> common sense and the UEFI specification. This can result in a number of issues
> if said exceptions are taken when they are expected to be masked, and
> additionally can confuse IRQ tracing if the original mask state is not
> restored prior to returning from firmware.
>
> In practice it's difficult to check that firmware never unmasks exceptions, but
> we can at least check that the IRQ flags are at least consistent upon entry to
> and return from a runtime services function call. This series implements said
> check in the shared EFI runtime wrappers code, after an initial round of
> refactoring (patches 1-5 of [2]).
>
> I have left ia64 as-is, without this check, as ia64 doesn't currently use the
> generic runtime wrappers, has many special cases for the runtime calls which
> don't fit well with the generic code, and I don't expect a new, buggy ia64
> firmware to appear soon.
>
> The first time corruption of the IRQ flags is detected, we dump a stack trace,
> and set TAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND. Additionally, and in all subsequent cases,
> we log (with ratelimiting) the specific corruption of the flags, and restore
> the expected flags to avoid redundant warnings elsewhere.
Thanks Mark. I've picked up the series and applied it to the v4.7
queue.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-25 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-25 13:46 [PATCHv3 0/5] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 1/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 14:12 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-25 14:15 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-04-25 14:24 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 14:27 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 15:59 ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-25 16:03 ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 14:33 ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 2/5] arm64/efi: enable runtime call flag checking Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:54 ` Will Deacon
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 3/5] arm/efi: " Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 4/5] x86/efi: " Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 13:46 ` [PATCHv3 5/5] efi/runtime-wrappers: remove ARCH_EFI_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK ifdef Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 16:03 ` 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=20160425160309.GD2829@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--to=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).