linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix regression introduced by set_irq

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:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:24:24 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
cc:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
	Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix regression introduced by set_irq_flags()
 removal

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:08:28PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > As discussed on IRC, another simpler (code line wise) solution is to
> > simply clear the IRQ_NOAUTOEN flag in the irq-armada-370-xp, which
> > brings us back to what set_irq_flags() was doing, without actually
> > reverting Rob's patch.
> > 
> > However, relying on IRQ_NOAUTOEN being cleared doesn't seem like the
> > right long term solution, which is why I implemented what I believe is
> > a (hopefully) better long term solution.
> 
> However, this is rather worrying.  NOAUTOEN is supposed to avoid enabling
> the interrupt when the interrupt is claimed.
> 
> If, as a result of Rob's patch, we now have a load of IRQs which are
> marked with NOAUTOEN which weren't, that's quite a large regression -
> possibly one which hasn't been properly found (not everyone tests -rc
> kernels) and we may be better to revert Rob's patch to avoid lots of
> breakge being reported when 4.3 is released.
> 
> I think Rob's patches need another review in light of this, to determine
> how much breakage there is here, and a decision how to proceed made on
> that basis.

I'll go over them tomorrow again and decide then what to do.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/