From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10E7408001; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:41:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783680076; cv=none; b=Y0LxnCKwVm8/Dx65ZGk/HZ7nrXG3PlTZz2iRmhAYnxTAMwRdCDPc1uALYwqtXBdRWYb4cB6XUSvK16rHjACCRslC3o2odCI9ITn1e1wLJvlOsyENcXC7uIvITbbbO+6iSQGWqaN99mpa4W32DA7Et6S26W0toBG/uFOEdxT0Ec4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783680076; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4Qke2xJsR2sXwK0I4gvKYKDPFfPo8IyCKD4XHCDwxuk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=o19PgmXP0IzRK8t96VAW5gOdF0vv2cXX+NfBQgvvBL9eAP3u9M1xonRT8YBI6rvAt1VmiSiMXHG1LODUflE/3X9XfaPtQZfMqubZhK3K85AhNevudUuruGEsfWG+6qDeYT0vrpxwQ5k/Z2AaAE0+9ckiCdgXcR8UvVdFR2xYFPc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=uulKf2rd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="uulKf2rd" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3E31D15; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 03:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e129823.arm.com (e129823.arm.com [10.2.213.3]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7E8A3F66F; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 03:41:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1783680073; bh=4Qke2xJsR2sXwK0I4gvKYKDPFfPo8IyCKD4XHCDwxuk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=uulKf2rdn99A9IDxFQosEukntgFiN1G5OTUZU+jvzGuTgezEks0y5xKArHbh1lpuD 8NkAmlIalQ8Ef79d1uR9u0ZEtrj+sHOcL73LZaNT1FMH4Nhx/fYkcAsngiIAUVqmLj ZrB9/5Ynnoy5mre5xI86wYkN93rWGuHdFGLuAfbg= Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 11:41:09 +0100 From: Yeoreum Yun To: Breno Leitao 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: > 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? -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun