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 77E3E413256; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 11:14:50 +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=1783682092; cv=none; b=Ev6uuJ0VQumq3EfLy+QajIVOJsuTwHHv7xl1cN0qvi0RbmqbZtG2f8hO5d2q/vn/tvuUUp6tmxWDVIm+VekQaq4vPZg1VwtXDZPHDBMSKUCc3NmdrpMruWg6ZJlrujTx8n/ej4UJEnOOAEPmWsAwlUoXISSSZe4bhwyQgJ5ncIQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783682092; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dH4eygRRNfaOBK+uSPgS7cFU5t6mhKPfpcm9ebOjtC8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tj6iUyAaI48uT962S5qqOaBDAGO4wxai3Tl77oNeqaCmUHWgFlAgiWfGunEzLVc89/UKD2qCco2p/jsubsG7zvFa4DPksFtkyRTzkvrX+eBkGLrhzJz2mr9j5F5LKJG3gHge1tWvwMklIrDn8ZhU5LggIcK/QO1e98ba7dqlDIU= 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=t+fXFaWJ; 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="t+fXFaWJ" 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=URERyriFwx+r+MkEJq+KkcYJaTrhaxr1UCB3wVvXGNU=; b=t+fXFaWJBtDIqvw6v3GZVFBpC7 dngXG/4Tbzn22Tlh10cur3g99LT3l/ShNpRrL4ZRsaWQCNKLb05mr/fNP6VlHxE5j0Ejb5g6e3gv5 17CmcCP9VG8gS/0Vst4nhjmOl9J6ROL0vGRBVXIJJ3Xx6wijd+mI7fCUu/nzcDCKOKQv08wI4/1Ii zM3+Lde74LU6XmYgUJDtSqyZQ1MObupEl5hM+CZSHb91cySRrsN5N4ylAVrPOIOjl4hCaybPAKvQD 1X9hz0shZ88ppETSvb6dBaqt8td0oN7oku7tg1OezA+TG0d3AFzFAfEcz5MfXNIE9Ajgs+VTTulbi Apx+3Alw==; 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 1wi9Be-004RGg-18; Fri, 10 Jul 2026 11:14:30 +0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 04:14:25 -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 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?