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 69D384D0CD8; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 11:33:38 +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=1791545629; cv=none; b=jT5RWjwa/uKEmVYGDctlLKDU9rz5tf1RGImRiSEO8+yS8HML6wIF6ZwavPkbgdZX9GnirAavYGK/VCY58Z3KZLC68AH/JetLcY9iSPEOy4nUU6J/MWaOD3IUmOFKhr4zMGZNrLFlBcbad6zo6dkuivgfxd12kHTqQzwVRVSNqA8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791545629; c=relaxed/simple; bh=35CcgE7qYKJIldcAlGz4d1dHsd0RyLUYt1G7cMocRRI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GQqrq4mK45OfJ+EU6bg31KLGQWbThTI1Fd0rh4Fw0XLq/euPpm0Y3dX2uDqswpp4i6sUu8IZpbXnam9SjTHlu8eZ3KgfWV5iRzxg/Q7eRneTBXS1QnmdcYTc9CK7QylHHVgSdi/wAB7KTt7DJpAjtkvf3N+05B3p571Z5KLh9pg= 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=MgO3dYSY; 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="MgO3dYSY" 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=lo5NHgYgqHC5VtUmJ9M7ieb++8MqWKPMb4kBZmp3hX0=; b=MgO3dYSYJj4FTMl+80fE72imSw 5civSJYOuhrmR1E6MoAZ93pWN5dp7ZKD65cvlpC/x4kCObLvuscojMrK1zrK5oPy8gUx3x0CfKThA 34TxY0zecp+DNW8OqC7C4JcQng+AdzuhNaYFxwZQj/8rQkXyQ5Qkpj7wXn7vOK1YSPJukmbM0p9nd WIGjZuqy4ee3J9ljU6nRXoSZjmg2rhV+L7C8mQfnJTlHRHVn9Rt62y/W5ewc08gjYbrAY6QB4iJkF 4YR28x84S2pUvJUN6PL1AxfydnZXBRUp6wFhuSto4XNA0MffD+1dnbx8MJjF3bMljTWSzRrdbwnHy 0GbDl/xA==; 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 1xF8qz-000VA8-30; Fri, 09 Oct 2026 11:33:34 +0000 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 04:33:25 -0700 From: Breno Leitao To: Yeoreum Yun Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ilias Apalodimas , "sami.mujawar@arm.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: efi: add a separate timeout for UpdateCapsule() Message-ID: References: <20260903113238.2291844-1-yeoreum.yun@arm.com> <960e985e-b338-4648-a29b-1f8a31e00599@app.fastmail.com> <44097058-9fdc-4e9f-a277-d63e3876b035@app.fastmail.com> <23ce2fb0-1002-409f-bb84-f592db9d0b89@app.fastmail.com> 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 Thu, Sep 17, 2026 at 05:01:20PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > Could there be any issues with doing it this way, or would there be > > > a better approach? > > > > > > > Would it make sense to simply have different limits for UpdateCapsule() and > > for everything else? How much longer than 2 minutes do you need in the > > typical case? > > Although the time required to complete a firmware update depends onthe platform > and other factors, such as whether the capsule contains a single firmware image > or multiple images, it is generally reasonable to expect the update to complete > within 10 minutes. > > If, for some reason, an update is expected to take longer than 10 minutes, > the sysfs interface for configuring capsule_update_timeout would be useful. > > This would allow the timeout to be adjusted as needed, for example to > 15 minutes, before capsule update. In this case, if you have a worker that takes 10-15 minutes, will not the workqueue stall kick in ?