linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: Rework IRQF_NO

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

Date:	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:58:10 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:03:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> So here's an idea.
> 
> What about returning IRQ_NONE rather than IRQ_HANDLED for "suspended"
> interrupts (after all, that's what a sane driver would do for a
> suspended device I suppose)?
> 
> If the line is really shared and the interrupt is taken care of by
> the other guy sharing the line, we'll be all fine.
> 
> If that is not the case, on the other hand, and something's really
> broken, we'll end up disabling the interrupt and marking it as
> IRQS_SPURIOUS_DISABLED (if I understand things correctly).
> 
> But then, we can re-enable it and clear the IRQS_SPURIOUS_DISABLED
> flag at the resume_device_irqs() time so the driver can use it again.
> And we'll have a trace of the breakage in dmesg, so possibly we can
> go forth and fix the bad guy.
> 
> Would that make sense?

Works for me.. 

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped