Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1385924

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

From Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation
Date 2016-04-24 23:30 +0200
Message-ID <rrzLk-2IO-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <rqJMK-2OK-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rqK66-3fM-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Fri, 22 Apr, at 04:12:59PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 22 April 2016 at 15:51, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > Some firmware erroneously unmask IRQs (and potentially other architecture
> > specific exceptions) during runtime services functions, in violation of both
> > common sense and the UEFI specification. This can result in a number of issues
> > if said exceptions are taken when they are expected to be masked, and
> > additionally can confuse IRQ tracing if the original mask state is not
> > restored prior to returning from firmware.
> >
> > In practice it's difficult to check that firmware never unmasks exceptions, but
> > we can at least check that the IRQ flags are at least consistent upon entry to
> > and return from a runtime services function call. This series implements said
> > check in the shared EFI runtime wrappers code, after an initial round of
> > refactoring such that this can be generic.
> >
> > I have left ia64 as-is, without this check, as ia64 doesn't currently use the
> > generic runtime wrappers, has many special cases for the runtime calls which
> > don't fit well with the generic code, and I don't expect a new, buggy ia64
> > firmware to appear soon.
> >
> > The first time corruption of the IRQ flags is detected, we dump a stack trace,
> > and set TAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND. Additionally, and in all subsequent cases,
> > we log (with ratelimiting) the specific corruption of the flags, and restore
> > the expected flags to avoid redundant warnings elsewhere.
> >
> > Since v1 [1]:
> > * Fix thinko: s/local_irq_save/local_save_flags/
> > * Remove ifdefs after conversion
> > * Remove reundant semicolon from x86 patch
> > * Move efi_call_virt_check_flags before first use
> > * Add Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys
> >
> > Ard, I assume that your Reviewed-by still stands for the final patch, even
> > though efi_call_virt_check_flags moved. Please shout if that's not the case!
> >
> 
> No, that's fine. Thanks for respinning so quickly.
> 
> > Hopefully you're also happy to extend that to the new patch removing the
> > ifdefs once they become superfluous.
> >
> 
> Matt: in case your review bandwidth is limited atm, I'd much prefer
> this series making v4.7 than the GOP stuff or the other stuff i have
> been posting over the past weeks.

I like this series a lot (well, ignoring the fact that the firmware is
trying to eat itself). The runtime call code is much cleaner now, and
this is a great precedent for any future multi-architecture quirks we
may need.

Queued for v4.7, thanks everyone!

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-22 16:00 +0200
  [PATCHv2 3/6] arm/efi: move to generic {__,}efi_call_virt Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-22 16:00 +0200
  [PATCHv2 6/6] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-22 16:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCHv2 6/6] efi/runtime-wrappers: detect FW irq flag corruption Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-04-24 23:20 +0200
  [PATCHv2 2/6] arm64/efi: move to generic {__,}efi_call_virt Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-22 16:00 +0200
  [PATCHv2 1/6] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt templates Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-22 16:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCHv2 1/6] efi/runtime-wrappers: add {__,}efi_call_virt  templates Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-04-24 23:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2016-04-22 16:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-04-24 23:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-04-25 12:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2016-04-25 12:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-04-25 12:30 +0200
            Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-25 12:50 +0200
              Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-04-25 13:00 +0200
                Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-04-25 13:10 +0200
                Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-04-25 13:20 +0200

csiph-web