[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu8OfqdJp-VhC3o-tie4mRZXsF5ESKkZbsjnBHDY4xbXvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:21:18 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation
(+ Laszlo)
On 25 April 2016 at 12:15, Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr, at 10:22:41PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>>
>> I like this series a lot (well, ignoring the fact that the firmware is
>> trying to eat itself). The runtime call code is much cleaner now, and
>> this is a great precedent for any future multi-architecture quirks we
>> may need.
>>
>> Queued for v4.7, thanks everyone!
>
> Hmm... Booting this series with Qemu and OVMF results in lots of
> warnings,
>
> [ 0.102173] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 0.103000] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at /dev/shm/mfleming/git/efi/drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c:30 efi_call_virt_check_flags+0x69/0x90
> [ 0.103505] Modules linked in:
> [ 0.104519] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.6.0-rc4+ #1
> [ 0.105000] 0000000000000000 ffffffff81e03e30 ffffffff8132206f 0000000000000000
> [ 0.105000] 0000000000000000 ffffffff81e03e70 ffffffff8105a47c 0000001e0000000a
> [ 0.105000] 0000000000000246 0000000000000286 ffffffff81bed975 ffffffff81e03f10
> [ 0.105000] Call Trace:
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff8132206f>] dump_stack+0x4d/0x6e
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff8105a47c>] __warn+0xcc/0xf0
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff8105a558>] warn_slowpath_null+0x18/0x20
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff8164e5a9>] efi_call_virt_check_flags+0x69/0x90
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff8164f9d2>] virt_efi_set_variable+0x82/0x190
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff81054555>] efi_delete_dummy_variable+0x75/0x80
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff81f599f6>] efi_enter_virtual_mode+0x463/0x472
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff81f41f82>] start_kernel+0x38f/0x415
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff81f419e1>] ? set_init_arg+0x55/0x55
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff81f415ee>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
> [ 0.105000] [<ffffffff81f416da>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xea/0xed
> [ 0.107181] ---[ end trace 0081cc453369d969 ]---
> [ 0.107499] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint
> [ 0.108226] [Firmware Bug]: IRQ flags corrupted (0x00000246=>0x00000286) by EFI set_variable
>
> Has anyone tested this series on x86 to ensure that this is a rare
> case? I'll go and test some physical x86 machines now.
I suppose that it is quite likely that this issue occurs in the wild
if it is present in OVMF. Could anyone check which flag is actually
clobbered here?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists