[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140425110936.GB26088@console-pimps.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:09:36 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
matt.fleming@...el.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/efi] x86/efi: Save and restore FPU context around
efi_calls (x86_64)
On Sun, 20 Apr, at 02:28:11AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> I guess you can use the kernel_fpu_begin/end() variants here (i.e.,
> without the "__") which disable and enable preemption and thus drop the
> preempt_* calls:
>
> efi_sync_low_kernel_mappings();
> kernel_fpu_begin();
> __s = efi_call((void *)efi.systab->runtime->f, __VA_ARGS__);
> kernel_fpu_end();
> __s;
>
> I'm not sure about the
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
>
> thing in kernel_fpu_begin() though, I guess it wouldn't hurt...
Hmm... note that we may call EFI runtime services from interrupt context
in efi_pstore_write(), so it seems like it would be possible to trigger
that WARN_ON_ONCE() there.
Seiji (Cc'd) might have some opinions on this.
Either way, if someone sends me a patch ontop of this one that swaps the
__kernel_fpu_begin() for kernel_fpu_begin() I can try them out in my
lab.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists