Hi Michael, Can you provide a pointer to the UEFI Spec statement this breaks?
Thanks, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Brown <mc...@ipxe.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 5:23 AM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Ni, Ray <ray...@intel.com> > Cc: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kin...@intel.com>; Liming Gao > <gaolim...@byosoft.com.cn>; Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>; Paolo > Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 2/2] MdeModulePkg/DxeCore: Fix stack > overflow issue due to nested interrupts > > On 29/02/2024 13:02, Ni, Ray wrote: > > A ideal solution is to not keep the interrupt disabled when > > RestoreTPL(TPL_HIGH -> not TPL_HIGH) is executed in the timer > interrupt > > context because the interrupt handler will re-enable the interrupt > with > > arch specific instructions (e.g.: IRET for x86). > > > > The patch introduces mInterruptedTplMask which tells RestoreTPL() if > > it's called in the interrupt context and whether it should defer > enabling > > the interrupt. > > NACK. This breaks the specification-defined behaviour for > RestoreTPL(). > > What guarantees do we have that there is no code anywhere in the world > that relies upon RestoreTPL() unconditionally re-enabling interrupts. > > I also find this code substantially harder to follow than > NestedInterruptTplLib (which does not break any specified behaviour). > > Thanks, > > Michael -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#116177): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/116177 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/104642317/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
