Linux EFI development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@google.com>
Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Ivan Hu <ivan.hu@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Restore IRQ state in EFI page fault handler
Date: Mon, 4 May 2026 11:01:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260504180107.GD2291@sol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260501090311.2483809-2-ardb+git@google.com>

On Fri, May 01, 2026 at 11:03:12AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> 
> The kernel's softirq API does not permit re-enabling softirqs while IRQs
> are disabled. The reason for this is that local_bh_enable() will not
> only re-enable delivery of softirqs over the back of IRQs, it will also
> handle any pending softirqs immediately, regardless of whether IRQs are
> enabled at that point.
> 
> For this reason, commit
> 
>   d02198550423 ("x86/fpu: Improve crypto performance by making kernel-mode FPU reliably usable in softirqs")
> 
> disables softirqs only when IRQs are enabled, as it is not permitted
> otherwise, but also unnecessary, given that asynchronous softirq
> delivery never happens to begin with while IRQs are disabled.
> 
> However, this does mean that entering a kernel mode FPU section with
> IRQs enabled and leaving it with IRQs disabled leads to problems, as
> identified by Sashiko [0]: the EFI page fault handler is called from
> page_fault_oops() with IRQs disabled, and thus ends the kernel mode FPU
> section with IRQs disabled as well, regardless of whether IRQs were
> enabled when it was started. This may result in schedule() being called
> with a non-zero preempt_count, causing a BUG().
> 
> So take care to re-enable IRQs when handling any EFI page faults if they
> were taken with IRQs enabled.
> 
> [0] https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260430074107.27051-1-ivan.hu%40canonical.com
> 
> Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
> Cc: Ivan Hu <ivan.hu@canonical.com>
> Fixes: d02198550423 ("x86/fpu: Improve crypto performance by making kernel-mode FPU reliably usable in softirqs")
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/efi.h     |  3 ++-
>  arch/x86/mm/fault.c            |  2 +-
>  arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>

- Eric

      parent reply	other threads:[~2026-05-04 18:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-01  9:03 [PATCH] x86/efi: Restore IRQ state in EFI page fault handler Ard Biesheuvel
2026-05-04 16:39 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-05-04 18:01 ` Eric Biggers [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=20260504180107.GD2291@sol \
    --to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=ardb+git@google.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=ivan.hu@canonical.com \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=x86@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