Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, 25 Apr, at 12:04:55PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:51:53AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Apr, at 11:40:09AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > It looks like irqs_disabled_flags() will do what you expect, and ignore > > > everything but the interrupt flag. >

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, 25 Apr, at 12:04:55PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:51:53AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Apr, at 11:40:09AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > It looks like irqs_disabled_flags() will do what you expect, and ignore > > > everything but the interrupt flag. >

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:51:53AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr, at 11:40:09AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > It looks like irqs_disabled_flags() will do what you expect, and ignore > > everything but the interrupt flag. > > > > However, for ARM that will ignore the other exceptions

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:51:53AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr, at 11:40:09AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > It looks like irqs_disabled_flags() will do what you expect, and ignore > > everything but the interrupt flag. > > > > However, for ARM that will ignore the other exceptions

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, 25 Apr, at 11:40:09AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > It looks like irqs_disabled_flags() will do what you expect, and ignore > everything but the interrupt flag. > > However, for ARM that will ignore the other exceptions we've seen FW > erroneously unmask (e.g. FIQ), which is unfortunate, as

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, 25 Apr, at 11:40:09AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > It looks like irqs_disabled_flags() will do what you expect, and ignore > everything but the interrupt flag. > > However, for ARM that will ignore the other exceptions we've seen FW > erroneously unmask (e.g. FIQ), which is unfortunate, as

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:28:21AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr, at 12:21:18PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > (+ Laszlo) > > > > On 25 April 2016 at 12:15, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Apr, at 10:22:41PM, Matt Fleming wrote: > > >> > > >> I like this

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:28:21AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr, at 12:21:18PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > (+ Laszlo) > > > > On 25 April 2016 at 12:15, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Apr, at 10:22:41PM, Matt Fleming wrote: > > >> > > >> I like this series a lot (well,

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, 25 Apr, at 12:21:18PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > (+ Laszlo) > > On 25 April 2016 at 12:15, Matt Fleming 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

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Mon, 25 Apr, at 12:21:18PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > (+ Laszlo) > > On 25 April 2016 at 12:15, Matt Fleming 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

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

(+ Laszlo) On 25 April 2016 at 12:15, Matt Fleming 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

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

(+ Laszlo) On 25 April 2016 at 12:15, Matt Fleming 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

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

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

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

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

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Fri, 22 Apr, at 04:12:59PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 22 April 2016 at 15:51, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Some firmware erroneously unmask IRQs (and potentially other architecture > > specific exceptions) during runtime services functions, in violation of both > > common

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On Fri, 22 Apr, at 04:12:59PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 22 April 2016 at 15:51, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Some firmware erroneously unmask IRQs (and potentially other architecture > > specific exceptions) during runtime services functions, in violation of both > > common sense and the UEFI

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On 22 April 2016 at 15:51, Mark Rutland wrote: > Some firmware erroneously unmask IRQs (and potentially other architecture > specific exceptions) during runtime services functions, in violation of both > common sense and the UEFI specification. This can result in a number of

Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] efi: detect erroneous firmware IRQ manipulation

On 22 April 2016 at 15:51, Mark Rutland wrote: > Some firmware erroneously unmask IRQs (and potentially other architecture > specific exceptions) during runtime services functions, in violation of both > common sense and the UEFI specification. This can result in a number of issues > if said