From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] efi: implement mandatory locking for UEFI Runtime Services Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:52:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20140708095247.GE27474@console-pimps.org> References: <1404295802-28030-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1404295802-28030-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20140707202954.GC27474@console-pimps.org> <20140708092958.GD27474@console-pimps.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Matt Fleming , "x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , Catalin Marinas , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , Leif Lindholm , Roy Franz , Mark Salter List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 08 Jul, at 11:45:03AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Well, that is what is says in the comment: > * ops.get_next_variable() is only called from register_efivars() > * or efivar_update_sysfs_entries(), > * which is protected by the BKL, so that path is safe. Oops, so it does. That's a stale comment. I'll update it. > I agree. So shall I update my patch to add a single spin_lock that is > used by all wrappers? > We will likely need the wrappers on ARM as well, only ia64 needs > another approach (if desired) Please do, that would be great! -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: matt@console-pimps.org (Matt Fleming) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:52:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] efi: implement mandatory locking for UEFI Runtime Services In-Reply-To: References: <1404295802-28030-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1404295802-28030-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20140707202954.GC27474@console-pimps.org> <20140708092958.GD27474@console-pimps.org> Message-ID: <20140708095247.GE27474@console-pimps.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 08 Jul, at 11:45:03AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Well, that is what is says in the comment: > * ops.get_next_variable() is only called from register_efivars() > * or efivar_update_sysfs_entries(), > * which is protected by the BKL, so that path is safe. Oops, so it does. That's a stale comment. I'll update it. > I agree. So shall I update my patch to add a single spin_lock that is > used by all wrappers? > We will likely need the wrappers on ARM as well, only ia64 needs > another approach (if desired) Please do, that would be great! -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center