From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from stravinsky.debian.org (stravinsky.debian.org [82.195.75.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12B9B24DCF6; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:48:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783691313; cv=none; b=oedQGdlPu4oE01Rz6UGSPE1egGdnr+VH7RuqyfoA4Ud2JHpC9fQW/n7CLnq+U0Lqm5KsTiDrRPPON3dfuHgN6cXRYrNoSMFtYOHHieaVICSe38IfW7WlpNeO1vyAj7AnkkgfVHw0DKCAdP9xmkBPNx5uHn1BCkVQGpylG4A8v1w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783691313; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1rQiDuFmyQTc45dNNlmvidmWC5c+gF53OqATGm3+jUo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BqyQWAcrRaT8RUCCXK4aq6seqSeikJqicZ5+4ZuRViDD3ANPxXE5ehvG3mmPemEdQQV3kHV6R+yuurjA08qiJH3262F0ZOsHz7ud2wCTuWyMnmx97dobhlgKq+jX9Qg/K1DyoGsPMAFe0+FYHDk3XbY//QxL1GAPowfZVZwCqfY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b=b/kLjpu2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=82.195.75.108 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=debian.org header.i=@debian.org header.b="b/kLjpu2" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; s=smtpauto.stravinsky; h=X-Debian-User:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=p0xPCXywvWmCNeuSV++rBW+PCnq/E7RY4p8aqyn5l8o=; b=b/kLjpu2lU4T2IJnIRw4mz7gME hK4z24HnWSGiYAmVftSaKRkDQCUyMMsojswFoxLAObJ+6YCZ7Ho8XTUdUlW2Fye5cuFkNnXtnpNgV l1/d79/BvicUyJxaVbSh+xF8v1o9quDKEgDiv4Npy82/d9y7mFb0240MD/DxyyTiX4nuPBkLiZAq5 GnJNVxA8PkhWnmB7y75iWfF7U+4V7DHGEHn7x61z7pcgVwwKChreWwbKtQWvkH3PKikDf3fhHyuVh icmwrGFyJHNp/SwDj3z4VCCznLjPqmh7FLV/4IERPcSGtltnoOnMPeJBWA2laGaiiflVN4AJNhZmj mPheHXCQ==; Received: from authenticated-user by stravinsky.debian.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wiBaF-004WJa-1B; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:48:03 +0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 06:47:57 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Yeoreum Yun Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Ilias Apalodimas , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Kees Cook , Tony Luck , "Guilherme G. Piccoli" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] efi/runtime-wrappers: bound the wait for EFI runtime service calls Message-ID: References: <20260616-efi_timeout-v3-0-76dd1d26657b@debian.org> <20260616-efi_timeout-v3-5-76dd1d26657b@debian.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Debian-User: leitao On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 12:26:42PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 11:41:09AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > > Hello Yeoreum, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 07:56:18AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > > > > > > > > One of my concern is for the UpdateCapsule runtime service. > > > > > It might have a case where takes more then 2 mins and there's one > > > > > RFC to support a runtime capsule update for arm platform [1]. > > > > > > > > I'm not familiar with UpdateCapsule. Are you suggesting that a 2-minute > > > > wait for an EFI call should be acceptable (?!) > > > > > > > > Wouldn't that trigger stalls and hung-task/wq warnings throughout the > > > > kernel? > > > > > > Might for default config timeout for hung-task. However at least > > > its timeout configurable. > > > > > > TBH, normally it wouldn't task more than 2 mins. > > > But for a in case of *slow firmware*, would be good to make > > > runtime-service timeout configurable at least? > > > > OK, that is fair request. > > > > I would suggest we do an additional patch with this change, if Ard is > > positive on the idea. > > > > Yeoreum, would you like to do it, or should I do it? > > It's up to you. I don't care who will do this :) > But if you have no bandwidth, I'll take once your patch is merged > and Ard agrees for this. Sounds good. Let's wait for Ard's feedback on the additional patches [1], and we can decide how to proceed from there. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/alDDv3XGXVdd1mri@gmail.com/ [1]