From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Ivan Hu <ivan.hu@canonical.com>
Cc: ardb@kernel.org, ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org, tglx@kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Fix graceful fault handling after FPU softirq changes
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:52:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260501055252.GA35316@sol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260430074107.27051-1-ivan.hu@canonical.com>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 03:41:07PM +0800, Ivan Hu wrote:
> Since commit d02198550423 ("x86/fpu: Improve crypto performance by
> making kernel-mode FPU reliably usable in softirqs"), kernel_fpu_begin()
> calls fpregs_lock() which uses local_bh_disable() instead of the
> previous preempt_disable(). This sets SOFTIRQ_OFFSET in preempt_count
> during the entire EFI runtime service call, causing in_interrupt() to
> return true in normal task context.
>
> The graceful page fault handler efi_crash_gracefully_on_page_fault()
> uses in_interrupt() to bail out for faults in real interrupt context.
> With SOFTIRQ_OFFSET now set, the handler always bails out, leaving EFI
> firmware page faults unhandled. This escalates to die() which also sees
> in_interrupt() as true and calls panic("Fatal exception in interrupt"),
> resulting in a hard system freeze. On systems with buggy firmware that
> triggers page faults during EFI runtime calls (e.g., accessing unmapped
> memory in GetTime()), this causes an unrecoverable hang instead of the
> expected graceful EFI_ABORTED recovery.
>
> Fix by replacing in_interrupt() with in_hardirq() || in_nmi(). This
> preserves the original intent of bailing for genuine hardware interrupt
> or NMI faults, while no longer falsely triggering from the FPU code
> path's local_bh_disable(). This is safe because softirqs cannot run
> during EFI calls (they are explicitly blocked by fpregs_lock()), so
> they can never be the source of a page fault in this context.
>
> Fixes: d02198550423 ("x86/fpu: Improve crypto performance by making kernel-mode FPU reliably usable in softirqs")
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Hu <ivan.hu@canonical.com>
Sorry for the trouble here.
Can you check the Sashiko review at
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260430074107.27051-1-ivan.hu%40canonical.com
? The two things it found look legitimate.
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-01 5:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-30 7:41 [PATCH] x86/efi: Fix graceful fault handling after FPU softirq changes Ivan Hu
2026-04-30 8:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-05-01 5:52 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2026-05-01 6:38 ` 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=20260501055252.GA35316@sol \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=ivan.hu@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@kernel.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