| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
commit 5dc3826d9f08 ("efi: Implement mandatory locking for UEFI Runtime
Services") implemented some conditional locking when accessing variable
runtime services that Ingo described as "pretty disgusting".
The intention with the !efi_in_nmi() checks was to avoid live-locks when
trying to write pstore crash data into an EFI variable. Such lockless
accesses are allowed according to the UEFI specification when we're in a
"non-recoverable" state, but whether or not things are implemented
correctly in actual firmware implementations remains an unanswered
question, and so it would seem sensible to avoid doing any kind of
unsynchronized variable accesses.
Furthermore, the efi_in_nmi() tests are inadequate because they don't
account for the case where we call EFI variable services from panic or
oops callbacks and aren't executing in NMI context. In other words,
live-locking is still possible.
Let's just remove the conditional locking altogether. Now we've got the
->set_variable_nonblocking() EFI variable operation we can abort if the
runtime lock is already held. Aborting is by far the safest option.
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There are some circumstances that call for trying to write an EFI
variable in a non-blocking way. One such scenario is when writing pstore
data in efi_pstore_write() via the pstore_dump() kdump callback.
Now that we have an EFI runtime spinlock we need a way of aborting if
there is contention instead of spinning, since when writing pstore data
from the kdump callback, the runtime lock may already be held by the CPU
that's running the callback if we crashed in the middle of an EFI
variable operation.
The situation is sufficiently special that a new EFI variable operation
is warranted.
Introduce ->set_variable_nonblocking() for this use case. It is an
optional EFI backend operation, and need only be implemented by those
backends that usually acquire locks to serialize access to EFI
variables, as is the case for virt_efi_set_variable() where we now grab
the EFI runtime spinlock.
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to be
serialized. Use a spinlock to serialize all Runtime Services with respect
to all others, even if this is more than strictly needed.
We've managed to get away without requiring a runtime services lock
until now because most of the interactions with EFI involve EFI
variables, and those operations are already serialised with
__efivars->lock.
Some of the assumptions underlying the decision whether locks are
needed or not (e.g., SetVariable() against ResetSystem()) may not
apply universally to all [new] architectures that implement UEFI.
Rather than try to reason our way out of this, let's just implement at
least what the spec requires in terms of locking.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
|
|
|
In order for other archs (such as arm64) to be able to reuse the virtual
mode function call wrappers, move them to drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
|
