linux-kernel - Re: Possible bug in 8250.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:21:56 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	mikeci@....org
Cc:	"Jiri Slaby" <jslaby@...e.cz>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible bug in 8250.c

> So in first iteration, interrupt is cleared, and in second, function will execute:
> 
>           } else if (end == NULL)
>                         end = l;
> 
> which will terminate the loop, but the return code will be IRQ_RETVAL(0).

If you are getting an extra IRQ when then chip itself is indicating no
IRQ then the IRQ is spurious. That probably means you have a problem
elsewhere - eg the IRQ controller being misconfigured between level/edge
triggered.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/