On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:37:59AM +0000, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth wrote:
> But, I guess, we have some downsides with this design:
> 1. We are doing this to have "no exceptions to use efi_rts_wq", but we will
> be making
> the common case complicated. i.e. When a user requests to write some efi
> variable,
So if the pstore use case is so important and special, I think we should
make the EFI path as fast as possible as getting that data to the pstore
is a priority.
> Alternatively, instead of playing around with in_atomic(), we could have
> wrapper
> functions like efi_write_var_non_wq() which will only be used by pstore. This
> function
> will not use efi_rts_wq and directly invoke efi_runtime_service. Just an
> attempt to
> make the code not look messy.
I guess.
If the write-to-pstore case is such a critical one, I guess the
exception is justified.
> That's true! AFAIK, we don't have any issues handling NMI while in efi_pgd.
> We might have issues only when, we are already in efi_pgd, NMI comes along
Can you trigger this? Or is it something hypothetical?
> and NMI handler tries to touch the regions that are not mapped in efi_pgd
If it is not hypothetical, the NMI handler should learn to look at CR3
first and return if CR3 has the efi pgd.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
