From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@google.com>,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/7] arm64/efi: Call EFI runtime services without disabling preemption
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 10:46:43 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEw=RSnf_Af=+AKWmuxJ+0dL_4CFSX7TyKo+SSKpxc6Bw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250714105520.GS905792@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 at 20:55, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 12:20:30PM +1000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 at 23:48, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
...
> > > Is the migrate_disable() strictly required, or just paranoia?
> > >
> >
> > Runtime services might be polling the secure firmware for an async
> > completion when they are interrupted, and so I don't think it is
> > generally safe to assume that an interrupted EFI runtime service can
> > be resumed on another CPU.
>
> Can we please get a comment with that migrate_disable() explaining this?
>
Sure
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-15 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-14 17:43 [RFC PATCH 0/7] arm64: Make EFI calls preemptible Ard Biesheuvel
2025-05-14 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7] efi: Add missing static initializer for efi_mm::cpus_allowed_lock Ard Biesheuvel
2025-05-14 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7] efi/runtime: Return success/failure from arch_efi_call_virt_setup() Ard Biesheuvel
2025-05-14 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7] efi/runtime: Deal with arch_efi_call_virt_setup() returning failure Ard Biesheuvel
2025-05-14 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7] arm64/fpsimd: Don't warn when EFI execution context is preemptible Ard Biesheuvel
2025-05-14 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7] arm64/efi: Use a semaphore to protect the EFI stack and FP/SIMD state Ard Biesheuvel
2025-05-14 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7] arm64/efi: Move uaccess en/disable out of efi_set_pgd() Ard Biesheuvel
2025-07-11 13:41 ` Will Deacon
2025-07-14 6:38 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-05-14 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7] arm64/efi: Call EFI runtime services without disabling preemption Ard Biesheuvel
2025-07-11 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-14 2:20 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-07-14 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-15 0:46 ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2025-07-11 13:44 ` [RFC PATCH 0/7] arm64: Make EFI calls preemptible Will Deacon
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='CAMj1kXEw=RSnf_Af=+AKWmuxJ+0dL_4CFSX7TyKo+SSKpxc6Bw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb+git@google.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@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 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).