[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160504093031.GA4074@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:30:31 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Kweh Hock Leong <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>,
Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>,
joeyli <jlee@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/capsule: Make efi_capsule_pending() lockless
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:12:01PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> We can find ourselves in the reboot code even if the admin has not
> executed the reboot command. The trace above shows we entered because
> the kernel panic()'d and it was booted with panic=-1.
I knew you were gonna say something like that...
> Right. You could find yourself in this situation if you're in the
> middle of a capsule update and the box panics and reboots. Like you
> said, there's really not much you can do there to ensure the update
> completes. Your best option is to just not block and hang the machine.
Hmmm, so panic() does bust_spinlocks() and efi_capsule_pending() could
look at oops_in_progress which is set by bust_spinlocks() and that would
probably solve the panic case but maybe the normal reboot case would
still hang...
> Note that in the panic() -> emergency_restart() case the reboot
> notifiers are not called at all.
And then there's that.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists