mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@citrix.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	<platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sai Praneeth <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi: Don't require non-blocking EFI callbacks
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:46:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <be816ae1-b802-f477-20d0-16e5be15a2b8@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu8ok=v6WaKWW1AmhPgf1-n7p=4h8Tkno9YNW6H8p4fg8w@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/26/19 4:29 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:12, Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> If a backend does not implement non-blocking EFI operations, it implies
>> that the normal operations are non-blocking.
> 
> Is that documented anywhere?

Sort of. From commit 6d80dba1c9fe "efi: Provide a non-blocking 
SetVariable() operation"

"""
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.
"""

> 
>> Instead of crashing
>> dereferencing a NULL pointer, fallback to the normal operations since it
>> is safe to do so.
>>
> 
> I agree that crashing is never the right thing to do, but I wonder
> whether we shouldn't just bail instead. If the provided default
> operation is non-blocking, the platform can populate the function
> pointer with a reference to the default implementation.

If you would prefer it that platforms are always required to implement 
the non-blocking functions, then I will just send a simple patch fixing 
up the Xen implementation.

Thanks,
-- 
Ross Lagerwall

  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-26 15:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-26 14:12 Ross Lagerwall
2019-09-26 15:29 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-09-26 15:46   ` Ross Lagerwall [this message]
2019-09-26 15:47     ` Ard Biesheuvel

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=be816ae1-b802-f477-20d0-16e5be15a2b8@citrix.com \
    --to=ross.lagerwall@citrix.com \
    --cc=andy@infradead.org \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.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®