On Tue, 08 Jul, at 11:45:03AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> Well, that is what is says in the comment:
> * ops.get_next_variable() is only called from register_efivars()
> * or efivar_update_sysfs_entries(),
> * which is protected by the BKL, so that path is safe.
Oops, s
On 8 July 2014 11:29, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul, at 10:54:13AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> After doing a bit more research, I still think there is work needed if
>> we aim to adhere to the UEFI spec, or at least be safe from the
>> hazards it points out.
>
> Note that I never claimed t
On Tue, 08 Jul, at 10:54:13AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> After doing a bit more research, I still think there is work needed if
> we aim to adhere to the UEFI spec, or at least be safe from the
> hazards it points out.
Note that I never claimed there wasn't a need for an EFI runtime lock, I
was
On 7 July 2014 22:43, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 7 July 2014 22:29, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jul, at 12:10:02PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
>>> reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to
On 7 July 2014 22:29, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul, at 12:10:02PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
>> reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to be
>> serialized.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheu
On Wed, 02 Jul, at 12:10:02PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
> reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to be
> serialized.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel
> ---
> drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappe
According to section 7.1 of the UEFI spec, Runtime Services are not fully
reentrant, and there are particular combinations of calls that need to be
serialized.
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel
---
drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c | 109 +---
1 file changed, 99 ins
