From: "Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>
To: "Yeoreum Yun" <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Ilias Apalodimas" <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
"Breno Leitao" <leitao@debian.org>,
"sami.mujawar@arm.com" <Sami.Mujawar@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: efi: add a separate timeout for UpdateCapsule()
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 16:29:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44097058-9fdc-4e9f-a277-d63e3876b035@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <apl_29t7Jxr2mv9C@e129823.arm.com>
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026, at 16:10, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> Hi Ard,
>
>> Hello Yeoreum Yun,
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2026, at 13:32, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
>> > On platforms that allows to update firmware in runtime, UpdateCapsule()
>> > may immediately write a firmware image to persistent storage.
>> > This operation can take longer than EFI_RTS_TIMEOUT.
>> >
>> > Use a separate timeout for the UpdateCapsule() runtime service. By
>> > default, wait indefinitely to avoid interrupting an ongoing firmware
>> > update. Administrators may configure an appropriate timeout, in seconds,
>> > through /sys/firmware/efi/capsule_update_timeout.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c | 14 +++------
>> > include/linux/efi.h | 10 ++++++
>> > 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> >
>>
>> Given that UpdateCapsule() is rarely used these days at runtime, I
>> wonder if we should just call it synchronously instead of via the
>> EFI workqueue.
>>
>> I assume that would also solve the timeout issue?
>
> Might be. But it would make *non-preemptible* for UpdateCapsule().
> AFAIK the purpose of running runtime service with efi_queue to
> run it in indepdent context and to be preemtible in case of arm64.
>
No.
> Since most of UpdateCapsule() will be called via capsule-loader's misc
> device, if UpdateCaspule() is called synchronously, It would be
> non-preemtible in arm64 platform.
>
> But, some platform could be preemptible while updating firmware so
> I think it would be better that it would be called via EFI workqueue.
>
EFI runtime service invocations are preemptible on arm64, so this is
not a problem.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-03 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-03 11:32 Yeoreum Yun
2026-09-03 11:47 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-03 14:10 ` Yeoreum Yun
2026-09-03 14:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2026-09-03 14:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2026-09-03 14:35 ` Yeoreum Yun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=44097058-9fdc-4e9f-a277-d63e3876b035@app.fastmail.com \
--to=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=Sami.Mujawar@arm.com \
--cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yeoreum.yun@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®