On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 12:14:30PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> On 08/08/2022 02:07, Evan Green wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 12:55 PM Guilherme G. Piccoli
> > <gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently the gsmi driver registers a panic notifier as well as
> >> reboot and die notifiers. The callbacks registered are called in
> >> atomic and very limited context - for instance, panic disables
> >> preemption and local IRQs, also all secondary CPUs (not executing
> >> the panic path) are shutdown.
> >>
> >> With that said, taking a spinlock in this scenario is a dangerous
> >> invitation for lockup scenarios. So, fix that by checking if the
> >> spinlock is free to acquire in the panic notifier callback - if not,
> >> bail-out and avoid a potential hang.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 74c5b31c6618 ("driver: Google EFI SMI")
> >> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Evan Green <evgreen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Julius Werner <jwerner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Evan Green <evgreen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks a bunch Evan!
>
> Ard / Greg, do you think you could get this patch through your -next (or
> -fixes) trees? Not sure which tree is the most common for picking GSMI
> stuff.
Picking out an individual patch from a series with as many responses and
threads like this one is quite difficult.
Just resend this as a stand-alone patch if you want it applied
stand-alone as our tools want to apply a whole patch series at once.
> I'm trying to get these fixes merged individually in their trees to not
> stall the whole series and increase the burden of re-submitting.
The burden is on the submitter, not the maintainer as we have more
submitters than reviewers/maintainers.
thanks,
greg k-h
