linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>,
	joeyli <jlee@suse.com>, Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>,
	matt.fleming@intel.com, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [regression, bisected] x86: efi: Pass boot services variable info to runtime code
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 14:43:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130531124356.GA8212@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130531123015.GC17843@nazgul.tnic>


* Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 01:06:09PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> >
> > (*) If one would be naive enough, he'd believe that the pressure 
> > should be put on the BIOS writers instead of OS to fix the bug :)
> 
> Oh, definitely pressure on BIOS dudes. If they're in violation of the 
> spec and they still can fix it in time, they better. I'm sick and tired 
> of having to deal with BIOS idiocy in kernel code.

I'm all for some BIOS quality bashing, but the reality is:

1) It's not just about SGI/UV systems but apparently about several 
   different types of x86 laptops produce the same boot crash pattern: 
   most of which come from manufacturers that simply don't care about 
   Linux all that much.

   So by not reverting we'd screw our users, not put any recognizable 
   pressure on any BIOS writers or manufacturers.

2) Obviously Windows does not crash, and that's what most laptops test.
   So our realistic 'spec target' is not some sort of pure 'EFI spec',
   but EFI implementations _tested under Windows_. Consider it an 
   'extended EFI compatibility spec'.

3) There's a better, more robust firmware environment approach being 
   worked on (by you?) that avoids such 1:1 physical mapping assumption 
   crashes. That's something worth doing anyway, so why not delay the 
   early QueryVariableInfo() call change to when that enviroment is 
   properly implemented?

4) The revert is easy, and the functionality the original patch provided
   was a marginal increase in debug output to begin with...

So to me the right approach seems to be:

 A: revert now for v3.10
 B: implement 1:1 mappings environment for firmware, for v3.11
 C: reintroduce the early QueryVariableInfo() call again, in v3.11

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-31 12:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-22 16:27 [regression, bisected] x86: efi: Pass boot services variable info to runtime code Russ Anderson
2013-05-23 11:58 ` Matt Fleming
2013-05-23 20:32   ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-24  7:43     ` Matt Fleming
2013-05-24 11:09       ` Borislav Petkov
2013-05-24 11:40         ` Matt Fleming
2013-05-24 16:11       ` Robin Holt
2013-05-24 17:02         ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-24 21:05           ` Dave Jones
2013-05-27  4:27             ` joeyli
2013-05-27  4:32               ` joeyli
2013-05-28  2:43               ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-24 20:05       ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-24 20:11         ` Matthew Garrett
2013-05-24 20:49           ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-28 10:50             ` Matt Fleming
2013-05-28 10:53         ` Matt Fleming
2013-05-28  8:35       ` Ingo Molnar
2013-05-29 21:01       ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-29 22:22         ` Jiri Kosina
2013-05-29 22:46           ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-29 22:53             ` Jiri Kosina
2013-05-30  2:16               ` joeyli
2013-05-30 22:17                 ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-30 22:21                   ` Matthew Garrett
2013-05-30 22:28                     ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-30 22:30                       ` Jiri Kosina
2013-05-31  2:17                         ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-31  3:28                           ` joeyli
2013-05-30 22:32                       ` Matthew Garrett
2013-05-31  2:54                         ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-31 10:06                           ` Ingo Molnar
2013-05-30 22:25                   ` Jiri Kosina
2013-05-31 10:12                     ` Ingo Molnar
2013-05-31 11:06                       ` Jiri Kosina
2013-05-31 11:40                         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-05-31 11:54                           ` Josh Boyer
2013-05-31 12:30                         ` Borislav Petkov
2013-05-31 12:43                           ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-05-31 14:34                             ` Matthew Garrett
2013-05-31 14:42                               ` James Bottomley
2013-05-31 14:45                                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-05-31 14:48                                 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-05-31 15:43                                   ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-31 16:28                                     ` Matthew Garrett
2013-05-31 17:35                                       ` James Bottomley
2013-05-31 22:57                                       ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-31 22:59                                         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-05-31 23:30                                         ` Jiri Kosina
2013-06-01  0:03                                         ` Matthew Garrett
2013-06-01  4:20                                           ` Russ Anderson
2013-06-01  4:41                                             ` Matthew Garrett
2013-06-01 11:01                               ` Linus Torvalds
2013-06-01 14:40                                 ` Matthew Garrett
2013-05-30  2:38             ` joeyli
2013-05-23 22:23   ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-24  7:45     ` Matt Fleming
2013-05-29 20:16       ` Russ Anderson
2013-05-31 14:41         ` H. Peter Anvin

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=20130531124356.GA8212@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
    --cc=jlee@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=matt.fleming@intel.com \
    --cc=matt@console-pimps.org \
    --cc=matthew.garrett@nebula.com \
    --cc=rja@sgi.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).