From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Bart Kuivenhoven <bemk@redhat.com>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>,
matt.fleming@intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jcm@redhat.com, msalter@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 efi: bugfix interrupt disabling sequence
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:50:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130921075002.GB7771@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1379708486.12705.131.camel@dhcp-128-237.ams.redhat.com>
* Bart Kuivenhoven <bemk@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 16:28 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep, at 07:28:53PM, Bart Kuivenhoven wrote:
> > > The problem in efi_main was that the idt was cleared before the
> > > interrupts were disabled.
> > >
> > > The UEFI spec states that interrupts aren't used so this shouldn't be
> > > too much of a problem. Peripherals however don't necessarily know about
> > > this and thus might cause interrupts to happen anyway. Even if
> > > ExitBootServices() has been called.
> > >
> > > This means there is a risk of an interrupt being triggered while the IDT
> > > register is nullified and the interrupt bit hasn't been cleared,
> > > allowing for a triple fault.
> >
> > Just to be clear, you haven't witnessed a triple fault, correct?
> >
> > > This patch fixes this by clearing the interrupt bit before the lidt
> > > instruction.
> >
> > I think we can go even further than this and get rid of all of the IDT
> > code in the EFI boot stub. The kernel maintains its own IDT anyway.
> >
>
> Well, isn't it so, that the kernel expects a setup in which interrupts
> are disabled before the decompressed image is loaded?
>
> What we can do is remove the lidt instruction and IDT pointer, but that
> still doesn't change anything with regards to the kernels expectations.
>
> And no, I haven't witnessed a triple fault, this is purely theoretical,
> with a very slim chance of it actually happening. That does not mean
> that it can't happen though.
it would also be very hard to prove that it occured (outside of special
debug environments) - spurious, low probability triple faults are as
undebuggable as it gets.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-21 7:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-18 17:28 [PATCH] x86 efi: bugfix interrupt disabling sequence Bart Kuivenhoven
2013-09-20 15:28 ` Matt Fleming
2013-09-20 20:21 ` Bart Kuivenhoven
2013-09-21 7:50 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-09-21 15:41 ` Matt Fleming
2013-09-23 9:27 ` Bart Kuivenhoven
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-09-23 9:45 Bart Kuivenhoven
2013-09-25 13:12 ` Matt Fleming
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=20130921075002.GB7771@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bemk@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jcm@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt.fleming@intel.com \
--cc=matt@console-pimps.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=msalter@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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