public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@google.com>,
	linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] arm64/efi: Use a mutex to protect the EFI stack and FP/SIMD state
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 14:54:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aM1gs9rhKbrB2Val@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXHDtTNMzih7OoTYU0vN4M3mOmFL3YOfaPUKReyJQA6uAQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 03:42:12PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 13:35, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 12:30:17PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > Replace the spinlock in the arm64 glue code with a mutex, so that
> > > the CPU can preempted while running the EFI runtime service.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
> > > index 0d52414415f3..4372fafde8e9 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
> > > @@ -166,15 +166,22 @@ asmlinkage efi_status_t efi_handle_corrupted_x18(efi_status_t s, const char *f)
> > >       return s;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(efi_rt_lock);
> > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(efi_rt_lock);
> > >
> > >  bool arch_efi_call_virt_setup(void)
> > >  {
> > >       if (!may_use_simd())
> > >               return false;
> > >
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * This might be called from a non-sleepable context so try to take the
> > > +      * lock but don't block on it. This should never fail in practice, as
> > > +      * all EFI runtime calls are serialized under the efi_runtime_lock.
> > > +      */
> > > +     if (WARN_ON(!mutex_trylock(&efi_rt_lock)))
> > > +             return false;
> >
> > If it will never fail in practice, why do we need the lock at all? Can we
> > just assert that the efi_runtime_lock is held instead and rely on that?
> >
> 
> Excellent point.
> 
> Do you mean a lockdep assert? efi_runtime_lock is a semaphore, so
> there is no is_locked() API that we can BUG() on here.

Yes, I was thinking of lockdep. Even though lockdep doesn't tend to be
enabled in production, just having it in the code is useful documentation
imo.

Will


  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-19 13:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-18 10:30 [PATCH v3 0/8] arm64: Make EFI calls preemptible Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] efi: Add missing static initializer for efi_mm::cpus_allowed_lock Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] efi/runtime: Return success/failure from arch_efi_call_virt_setup() Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] efi/runtime: Deal with arch_efi_call_virt_setup() returning failure Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] arm64/fpsimd: Permit kernel mode NEON with IRQs off Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:33   ` Will Deacon
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] arm64/fpsimd: Drop special handling for EFI runtime services Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 11:57   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 13:10   ` Mark Brown
2025-09-22  6:55     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] arm64/efi: Use a mutex to protect the EFI stack and FP/SIMD state Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:35   ` Will Deacon
2025-09-19 13:42     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 13:54       ` Will Deacon [this message]
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] arm64/efi: Move uaccess en/disable out of efi_set_pgd() Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:36   ` Will Deacon
2025-09-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] arm64/efi: Call EFI runtime services without disabling preemption Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:36   ` Will Deacon
2025-09-18 11:33 ` [PATCH v3 0/8] arm64: Make EFI calls preemptible Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-18 11:44   ` Will Deacon
2025-09-18 11:48     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2025-09-19 11:38   ` 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=aM1gs9rhKbrB2Val@willie-the-truck \
    --to=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=ardb+git@google.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --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 \
    /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