linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] arm64: add EFI runtime services

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140318173616.GB20497@arm.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:36:20 +0000
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
Cc:	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"matt.fleming@...el.com" <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"roy.franz@...aro.org" <roy.franz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] arm64: add EFI runtime services

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 02:16:49PM +0000, Mark Salter wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 12:34 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:47:06PM +0000, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c
> > [...]
> > > +/*
> > > + * Called from setup_arch with interrupts disabled.
> > > + */
> > > +void __init efi_enter_virtual_mode(void)
> > [...]
> > > --- a/init/main.c
> > > +++ b/init/main.c
> > > @@ -902,6 +902,10 @@ static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void)
> > >         smp_prepare_cpus(setup_max_cpus);
> > > 
> > >         do_pre_smp_initcalls();
> > > +
> > > +       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) && efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT))
> > > +               efi_enter_virtual_mode();
> > 
> > The comment for the efi_enter_virtual_mode() function says "called from
> > setup_arch with interrupts disabled". None of these are true for the
> > call above (and I would really prefer an arch call than this arm64
> > conditional call in init/main.c.
> > 
> 
> Right, the call changed to later in boot but the comment didn't. Calling
> from setup_arch is too early. But an early_initcall would work and would
> get rid of the ugly CONFIG_ARM64 test.

I agree, early_initcall() is better.

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/