From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] efi: implement mandatory locking for UEFI Runtime Services Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:21:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20140804152155.GL15082@console-pimps.org> References: <1405062556-14540-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20140804130011.GI15082@console-pimps.org> <20140804144957.GK15082@console-pimps.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Matt Fleming , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Leif Lindholm , Mark Salter , Roy Franz List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 04 Aug, at 05:05:53PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > I think that makes sense. As I said, I don't have a strong preference > either way regarding the NMI handling, as it does not affect the > systems I am primarily concerned with (and it sounds like a big hack > anyway). What I /am/ concerned with is not getting code into the > kernel that turns out to be non-compliant a couple of months down the > road and having to fix it urgently then. Right, that's a valid concern. > So other than GetVariable and SetVariable, or there any other services > that need the NMI treatment? The one and only (potential) NMI-context caller of EFI runtime services is efi_pstore_write(), which calls (as part of efivar_entry_set_safe()) QueryVariableInfo() and SetVariable(). -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center