From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Lee,
Chun-Yi" <jlee@suse.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@suse.com>,
Fabian Vogt <fvogt@suse.com>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
Arthur Heymans <arthur@aheymans.xyz>,
Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@9elements.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/efivars: Create efivars mount point in the registration of efivars abstraction
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:51:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200924095157.GA304421@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200924082833.12722-1-jlee@suse.com>
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:28:33PM +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> This patch moved the logic of creating efivars mount point to the
> registration of efivars abstraction. It's useful for userland to
> determine the availability of efivars filesystem by checking the
> existence of mount point.
Why not do what all other tools do, and look in /proc/filesystems?
Why is efivars "special" in this way? What tool isn't properly looking
for the filesystem in that way today?
> The 'efivars' platform device be created on generic EFI runtime services
> platform, so it can be used to determine the availability of efivarfs.
> But this approach is not available for google gsmi efivars abstraction.
I do not understand this last sentence, can you try to explain it
better?
> This patch be tested on Here on qemu-OVMF and qemu-uboot.
How about real hardware? :)
>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
> Cc: Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@suse.com>
> Cc: Fabian Vogt <fvogt@suse.com>
> Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Arthur Heymans <arthur@aheymans.xyz>
> Cc: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@9elements.com>
> Signed-off-by: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@suse.com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 7 -------
> drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> index 3aa07c3b5136..23c11a2a3f4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
> @@ -405,13 +405,6 @@ static int __init efisubsys_init(void)
> if (error)
> goto err_remove_group;
>
> - /* and the standard mountpoint for efivarfs */
> - error = sysfs_create_mount_point(efi_kobj, "efivars");
> - if (error) {
> - pr_err("efivars: Subsystem registration failed.\n");
> - goto err_remove_group;
> - }
> -
> if (efi_enabled(EFI_DBG) && efi_enabled(EFI_PRESERVE_BS_REGIONS))
> efi_debugfs_init();
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c
> index 973eef234b36..6fa7f288d635 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c
> @@ -1179,6 +1179,8 @@ int efivars_register(struct efivars *efivars,
> const struct efivar_operations *ops,
> struct kobject *kobject)
> {
> + int error;
> +
> if (down_interruptible(&efivars_lock))
> return -EINTR;
>
> @@ -1191,6 +1193,19 @@ int efivars_register(struct efivars *efivars,
>
> up(&efivars_lock);
>
> + /* and the standard mountpoint for efivarfs */
> + if (efi_kobj) {
Why test for this? Can it race?
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-24 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-24 8:28 [PATCH] efi/efivars: Create efivars mount point in the registration of efivars abstraction Lee, Chun-Yi
2020-09-24 9:51 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2020-09-25 0:43 ` joeyli
2020-09-24 10:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-09-25 0:50 ` joeyli
2020-09-25 7:01 ` Ard Biesheuvel
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=20200924095157.GA304421@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=arthur@aheymans.xyz \
--cc=fvogt@suse.com \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=jlee@suse.com \
--cc=joeyli.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbrugger@suse.com \
--cc=patrick.rudolph@9elements.com \
/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