* [PATCH] arm64/mm: Route faults taken by EFI runtime firmware to no_context
@ 2026-10-09 14:34 Ard Biesheuvel
2026-10-12 8:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2026-10-09 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Cc: linux-efi, will, catalin.marinas, mark.rutland, Ard Biesheuvel
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
When EFI runtime services are invoked from a preemptible kthread, the
kthread runs with efi_mm installed via kthread_use_mm() and preemption
enabled, so neither faulthandler_disabled() nor !mm applies in
do_page_fault(). A permission fault taken by the firmware on one of its
own (TTBR0) mappings then hits the 'access to user memory outside
uaccess routines' check and oopses, without efi_runtime_fixup_exception()
ever being consulted.
efi_mm has no VMAs, so there is nothing for the mm to resolve. Send such
faults to no_context directly, so that __do_kernel_fault() can recover
from them as it does when the call is made with preemption disabled.
Fixes: a5baf582f4c0 ("arm64/efi: Call EFI runtime services without disabling preemption")
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
index 0b52557652be..db308fe01c4f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
#include <asm/kprobes.h>
#include <asm/mte.h>
#include <asm/processor.h>
+#include <asm/stacktrace.h>
#include <asm/sysreg.h>
#include <asm/system_misc.h>
#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
@@ -621,6 +622,17 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
if (faulthandler_disabled() || !mm)
goto no_context;
+ /*
+ * Faults taken by EFI runtime services firmware are never resolved by
+ * the mm (efi_mm has no VMAs), and must reach __do_kernel_fault() so
+ * that efi_runtime_fixup_exception() can recover from them. When EFI
+ * runtime services are invoked from a preemptible kthread, neither of
+ * the conditions above applies, so check for this explicitly.
+ */
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && !user_mode(regs) &&
+ is_ttbr0_addr(regs->pc) && current_in_efi())
+ goto no_context;
+
if (user_mode(regs))
mm_flags |= FAULT_FLAG_USER;
--
2.56.0.385.gd3acb90ef8-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Route faults taken by EFI runtime firmware to no_context
2026-10-09 14:34 [PATCH] arm64/mm: Route faults taken by EFI runtime firmware to no_context Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2026-10-12 8:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-10-12 12:51 ` Catalin Marinas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2026-10-12 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel
Cc: linux-efi, Will Deacon, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland
On Fri, 9 Oct 2026, at 16:34, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
>
> When EFI runtime services are invoked from a preemptible kthread, the
> kthread runs with efi_mm installed via kthread_use_mm() and preemption
> enabled, so neither faulthandler_disabled() nor !mm applies in
> do_page_fault(). A permission fault taken by the firmware on one of its
> own (TTBR0) mappings then hits the 'access to user memory outside
> uaccess routines' check and oopses, without efi_runtime_fixup_exception()
> ever being consulted.
>
> efi_mm has no VMAs, so there is nothing for the mm to resolve. Send such
> faults to no_context directly, so that __do_kernel_fault() can recover
> from them as it does when the call is made with preemption disabled.
>
> Fixes: a5baf582f4c0 ("arm64/efi: Call EFI runtime services without
> disabling preemption")
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index 0b52557652be..db308fe01c4f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
> #include <asm/kprobes.h>
> #include <asm/mte.h>
> #include <asm/processor.h>
> +#include <asm/stacktrace.h>
> #include <asm/sysreg.h>
> #include <asm/system_misc.h>
> #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> @@ -621,6 +622,17 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long
> far, unsigned long esr,
> if (faulthandler_disabled() || !mm)
> goto no_context;
>
> + /*
> + * Faults taken by EFI runtime services firmware are never resolved by
> + * the mm (efi_mm has no VMAs), and must reach __do_kernel_fault() so
> + * that efi_runtime_fixup_exception() can recover from them. When EFI
> + * runtime services are invoked from a preemptible kthread, neither of
> + * the conditions above applies, so check for this explicitly.
> + */
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && !user_mode(regs) &&
> + is_ttbr0_addr(regs->pc) && current_in_efi())
> + goto no_context;
> +
Looking at this again, I wonder if we should just add a comparison with
&efi_mm to the preceding if() condition.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Route faults taken by EFI runtime firmware to no_context
2026-10-12 8:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2026-10-12 12:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2026-10-12 12:52 ` Ard Biesheuvel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2026-10-12 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-efi, Will Deacon,
Mark Rutland
On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 10:36:41AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > index 0b52557652be..db308fe01c4f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
> > #include <asm/kprobes.h>
> > #include <asm/mte.h>
> > #include <asm/processor.h>
> > +#include <asm/stacktrace.h>
> > #include <asm/sysreg.h>
> > #include <asm/system_misc.h>
> > #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> > @@ -621,6 +622,17 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long
> > far, unsigned long esr,
> > if (faulthandler_disabled() || !mm)
> > goto no_context;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Faults taken by EFI runtime services firmware are never resolved by
> > + * the mm (efi_mm has no VMAs), and must reach __do_kernel_fault() so
> > + * that efi_runtime_fixup_exception() can recover from them. When EFI
> > + * runtime services are invoked from a preemptible kthread, neither of
> > + * the conditions above applies, so check for this explicitly.
> > + */
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && !user_mode(regs) &&
> > + is_ttbr0_addr(regs->pc) && current_in_efi())
> > + goto no_context;
> > +
>
> Looking at this again, I wonder if we should just add a comparison with
> &efi_mm to the preceding if() condition.
I think mm_is_efi() check in the previous block is simpler. I couldn't
find any case where this wouldn't cover the more extensive check above
(or the other way around).
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Route faults taken by EFI runtime firmware to no_context
2026-10-12 12:51 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2026-10-12 12:52 ` Ard Biesheuvel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2026-10-12 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel, linux-arm-kernel, linux-efi, Will Deacon,
Mark Rutland
On Mon, 12 Oct 2026, at 14:51, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 10:36:41AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
>> > index 0b52557652be..db308fe01c4f 100644
>> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
>> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
>> > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
>> > #include <asm/kprobes.h>
>> > #include <asm/mte.h>
>> > #include <asm/processor.h>
>> > +#include <asm/stacktrace.h>
>> > #include <asm/sysreg.h>
>> > #include <asm/system_misc.h>
>> > #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
>> > @@ -621,6 +622,17 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long
>> > far, unsigned long esr,
>> > if (faulthandler_disabled() || !mm)
>> > goto no_context;
>> >
>> > + /*
>> > + * Faults taken by EFI runtime services firmware are never resolved by
>> > + * the mm (efi_mm has no VMAs), and must reach __do_kernel_fault() so
>> > + * that efi_runtime_fixup_exception() can recover from them. When EFI
>> > + * runtime services are invoked from a preemptible kthread, neither of
>> > + * the conditions above applies, so check for this explicitly.
>> > + */
>> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI) && !user_mode(regs) &&
>> > + is_ttbr0_addr(regs->pc) && current_in_efi())
>> > + goto no_context;
>> > +
>>
>> Looking at this again, I wonder if we should just add a comparison with
>> &efi_mm to the preceding if() condition.
>
> I think mm_is_efi() check in the previous block is simpler. I couldn't
> find any case where this wouldn't cover the more extensive check above
> (or the other way around).
>
Exactly. I'll send a v2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-10-12 12:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-10-09 14:34 [PATCH] arm64/mm: Route faults taken by EFI runtime firmware to no_context Ard Biesheuvel
2026-10-12 8:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-10-12 12:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2026-10-12 12:52 ` Ard Biesheuvel
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox