linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 12:20:30 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXGEHWMhMgY8ZMiRxKPTeD+oZBReozKwA4udJsrp-j_P_A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250711134833.GI905792@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 at 23:48, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 07:43:47PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> >
> > The only remaining reason why EFI runtime services are invoked with
> > preemption disabled is the fact that the mm is swapped out behind the
> > back of the context switching code.
> >
> > The kernel no longer disables preemption in kernel_neon_begin().
> > Furthermore, the EFI spec is being clarified to explicitly state that
> > only baseline FP/SIMD is permitted in EFI runtime service
> > implementations, and so the existing kernel mode NEON context switching
> > code is sufficient to preserve and restore the execution context of an
> > in-progress EFI runtime service call.
> >
> > Most EFI calls are made from the efi_rts_wq, which is serviced by a
> > kthread. As kthreads never return to user space, they usually don't have
> > an mm, and so we can use the existing infrastructure to swap in the
> > efi_mm while the EFI call is in progress. This is visible to the
> > scheduler, which will therefore reactivate the selected mm when
> > switching out the kthread and back in again.
> >
> > Given that the EFI spec explicitly permits runtime services to be called
> > with interrupts enabled, firmware code is already required to tolerate
> > interruptions. So rather than disable preemption, disable only migration
> > so that EFI runtime services are less likely to cause scheduling delays.
> >
> > Note, though, that the firmware executes at the same privilege level as
> > the kernel, and is therefore able to disable interrupts altogether.
>
> 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.


  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-14  2:23 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 [this message]
2025-07-14 10:55       ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-07-15  0:46         ` Ard Biesheuvel
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=CAMj1kXGEHWMhMgY8ZMiRxKPTeD+oZBReozKwA4udJsrp-j_P_A@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).