Hello Sai,
On 5 March 2018 at 23:23, Sai Praneeth Prakhya
wrote:
> From: Sai Praneeth
>
> Invoking efi_runtime_services() through efi_workqueue means all accesses
> to efi_runtime_services() should be done after efi_rts_wq has been
> created. efi_delete_dummy_variable() calls set_variable(), hen
Attn: Beneficiary,
We have contacted the Federal Ministry of Finance on your Behalf and
they have brought a solution to your problem by coordinating your
payment in total (10,000,000.00) Ten Million Dollars in an atm card
which you can use to withdraw money from any ATM MACHINE CENTER
anywhere in
+Cc Miguel Ojeda
> > > +({
> > > \
> > > + struct efi_runtime_work efi_rts_work; \
> > > + \
> > > + INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&efi_rts_work.work
> > +({ \
> > + struct efi_runtime_work efi_rts_work; \
> > + \
> > + INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&efi_rts_work.work, efi_call_rts);\
> >
> >> > pstore writes could potentially be invoked in interrupt context and
> >> > it uses set_variable<>() and query_variable_info<>() to store logs.
> >> > If we invoke efi_runtime_services() through efi_rts_wq while in
> >> > atomic() kernel issues a warning ("scheduling wile in atomic") and
> >>
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Prakhya, Sai Praneeth
wrote:
> 05, 2018 at 03:23:10PM -0800, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
>> > From: Sai Praneeth
>> >
>> > Presently, efi_runtime_services() are executed by firmware in process
>> > context. To execute efi_runtime_service(), kernel switches the page
> > +struct workqueue_struct *efi_rts_wq;
> > +
> > static bool disable_runtime;
> > static int __init setup_noefi(char *arg) { @@ -329,6 +331,19 @@
> > static int __init efisubsys_init(void)
> > return 0;
> >
> > /*
> > +* Since we process only one efi_runtime_se
05, 2018 at 03:23:10PM -0800, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> > From: Sai Praneeth
> >
> > Presently, efi_runtime_services() are executed by firmware in process
> > context. To execute efi_runtime_service(), kernel switches the page
> > directory from swapper_pgd to efi_pgd. However, efi_pgd doesn't
-0800, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> > @@ -329,6 +331,19 @@ static int __init efisubsys_init(void)
> > return 0;
> >
> > /*
> > +* Since we process only one efi_runtime_service() at a time, an
> > +* ordered workqueue (which creates only one execution context)
> > +* sho
(+ James)
Hello Akashi,
On 6 March 2018 at 09:00, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Tyler, Jeffrey,
>
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 08:27:11AM -0500, Tyler Baicar wrote:
>> On 3/2/2018 12:53 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> >Tyler, Jeffrey,
>> >
>> >[Note: This issue takes place in kexec, not kdump. So to be pr
Hello Akashi,
On 3/6/2018 4:00 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Tyler, Jeffrey,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 08:27:11AM -0500, Tyler Baicar wrote:
On 3/2/2018 12:53 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Tyler, Jeffrey,
[Note: This issue takes place in kexec, not kdump. So to be precise,
it is not the same phenom
On 7 March 2018 at 17:44, Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 17:31 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 27 February 2018 at 17:27, Andy Shevchenko
>> wrote:
>> > The memory we are accessing through virtual address has no IO side
>> > effects. Moreover, for IO memory we have to use speci
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 17:31 +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 27 February 2018 at 17:27, Andy Shevchenko
> wrote:
> > The memory we are accessing through virtual address has no IO side
> > effects. Moreover, for IO memory we have to use special accessors,
> > which we don't use.
> >
>
> Not 100%
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 08:18 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 15:05 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > what's the status of this please? Distributors (I checked SUSE,
> > RedHat and Ubuntu) have to carry these patches and every of them
> > have to forward-port the patches to new kernels. S
On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 15:05 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11/16/2016, 07:10 PM, David Howells wrote:
> > Here are two sets of patches. Firstly, the first three patches provide a
> > blacklist, making the following changes:
> ...
> > Secondly, the remaining patches allow the UEFI database to be use
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0800, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> +#define efi_queue_work(_rts, _arg1, _arg2, _arg3, _arg4, _arg5)
> \
> +({ \
> + struct efi_runtime_work efi_rts_work;
Hi Hans,
On 03/07/2018 12:16 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07-03-18 09:41, Thiebaud Weksteen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for testing and sending this report! This patch relies heavily on
>> the functions exposed by the firmware. My first guess would be that some of
>> these may not be impl
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Sai Praneeth Prakhya
wrote:
> From: Sai Praneeth
>
> When a process requests the kernel to execute any efi_runtime_service(),
> the requested efi_runtime_service (represented as an identifier) and its
> arguments are packed into a struct named efi_runtime_work and
Hi,
On 07-03-18 09:41, Thiebaud Weksteen wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for testing and sending this report! This patch relies heavily on
the functions exposed by the firmware. My first guess would be that some of
these may not be implemented correctly by the manufacturer.
Could you share more information
Hi,
Thanks for testing and sending this report! This patch relies heavily on
the functions exposed by the firmware. My first guess would be that some of
these may not be implemented correctly by the manufacturer.
Could you share more information on this specific device?
Do you have any link to th
20 matches
Mail list logo
