From: Mike Travis <mike.travis@hpe.com>
To: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@hpe.com>,
Hedi Berriche <hedi.berriche@hpe.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Russ Anderson <rja@hpe.com>, Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@hpe.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 0/4] Protect against concurrent calls into UV BIOS
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:31:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6d2c7655-a8f4-e2ef-1479-f43e707c6a86@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190214212149.GB5073@hpe.com>
On 2/14/2019 1:21 PM, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> For the series:
>
> Reviewed-by: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@hpe.com>
As well as I:
Reviewed-by: Mike Travis <mike.travis@hpe.com>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 07:34:09PM +0000, Hedi Berriche wrote:
>> - Changes since v2
>> Addressed comments from Ard Biesheuvel:
>> * expose efi_runtime_lock to UV platform only instead of globally
>> * remove unnecessary #ifdef CONFIG_EFI from bios_uv.c
>>
>> - Changes since v1:
>> Addressed comments from Bhupesh Sharma, Thomas Gleixner, and Ard Biesheuvel:
>> * made __uv_bios_call() static
>> * moved the efi_enabled() cleanup to its own patchlet
>> * explained the reason for renaming the efi_runtime_lock semaphore
>> * dropped the reviewed-bys as they should be given on the mailing list
>> * Cc'ng stable@vger.kernel.org given the nature of the problem addressed by the patches
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Calls into UV BIOS were not being serialised which is wrong as it violates EFI
>> runtime rules, and bad as it does result in all sorts of potentially hard to
>> track down hangs and panics when efi_scratch.prev_mm gets clobbered whenever
>> efi_switch_mm() gets called concurrently from two different CPUs.
>>
>> Patch #1 removes an unnecessary #ifdef CONFIG_EFI guard from bios_uv.c.
>>
>> Patch #2 removes uv_bios_call_reentrant() because it's dead code.
>>
>> Patch #3 is a cleanup that drops test_bit() in favour of the ad hoc efi_enabled().
>>
>> Patch #4 makes uv_bios_call() variants use the efi_runtime_lock semaphore to
>> protect against concurrency.
>>
>> Cc: Russ Anderson <rja@hpe.com>
>> Cc: Mike Travis <mike.travis@hpe.com>
>> Cc: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@hpe.com>
>> Cc: Steve Wahl <steve.wahl@hpe.com>
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.9+
>>
>> Hedi Berriche (4):
>> x86/platform/UV: remove unnecessary #ifdef CONFIG_EFI
>> x86/platform/UV: kill uv_bios_call_reentrant() as it has no callers
>> x86/platform/UV: use efi_enabled() instead of test_bit()
>> x86/platform/UV: use efi_runtime_lock to serialise BIOS calls
>>
>> arch/x86/include/asm/uv/bios.h | 13 ++++-----
>> arch/x86/platform/uv/bios_uv.c | 35 ++++++++++++++-----------
>> drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c | 7 +++++
>> 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> 2.20.1
>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-14 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-13 19:34 Hedi Berriche
2019-02-13 19:34 ` [Patch v3 1/4] x86/platform/UV: remove unnecessary #ifdef CONFIG_EFI Hedi Berriche
2019-02-15 15:04 ` [tip:x86/uv] x86/platform/UV: Remove " tip-bot for Hedi Berriche
2019-02-13 19:34 ` [Patch v3 2/4] x86/platform/UV: kill uv_bios_call_reentrant() Hedi Berriche
2019-02-15 15:04 ` [tip:x86/uv] x86/platform/UV: Remove uv_bios_call_reentrant() tip-bot for Hedi Berriche
2019-02-13 19:34 ` [Patch v3 3/4] x86/platform/UV: use efi_enabled() instead of test_bit() Hedi Berriche
2019-02-15 15:05 ` [tip:x86/uv] x86/platform/UV: Use " tip-bot for Hedi Berriche
2019-02-13 19:34 ` [Patch v3 4/4] x86/platform/UV: use efi_runtime_lock to serialise BIOS calls Hedi Berriche
2019-02-15 15:01 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86/platform/UV: Use " tip-bot for Hedi Berriche
2019-02-14 8:17 ` [Patch v3 0/4] Protect against concurrent calls into UV BIOS Ard Biesheuvel
2019-02-14 21:08 ` Russ Anderson
2019-02-14 21:21 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2019-02-14 21:31 ` Mike Travis [this message]
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=6d2c7655-a8f4-e2ef-1479-f43e707c6a86@hpe.com \
--to=mike.travis@hpe.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=bhsharma@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hedi.berriche@hpe.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rja@hpe.com \
--cc=sivanich@hpe.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steve.wahl@hpe.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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®