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
next prev parent 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).