linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] acpi, pci, irq: account for early penalty assignment

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, 8 Mar 2016 11:35:54 -0600
From:	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	timur@...eaurora.org, cov@...eaurora.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, ravikanth.nalla@....com,
	lenb@...nel.org, harish.k@....com, ashwin.reghunandanan@....com,
	bhelgaas@...gle.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] acpi, pci, irq: account for early penalty assignment

On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 09:22:13AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:55:43AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > > It makes sense for SCI as it is Intel specific.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, this cannot be done in an arch independent way. Of course,
> > > ARM had to implement its own thing. While level-triggered, active-low is
> > > good for intel world, it is not for the ARM world. ARM uses active-high
> > > level triggered.
> > 
> > I'm confused.  I don't think SCI is Intel-specific.  Per PCI Spec
> > r3.0, sec 2.2.6, PCI interrupts are level-sensitive, asserted low.
> > Per ACPI Spec v3.0, sec 2.1, the SCI is an "active, low, shareable,
> > level interrupt".
> > 
> > Are you saying SCI is active-high on ARM?  If so, I don't think that's
> > necessarily a huge problem, although we'd have to audit the ACPI code
> > to make sure we handle it correctly.
> > 
> > The point here is that a PCI Interrupt Link can only use an IRQ that
> > is level-triggered, active low.  If an IRQ is already set to any other
> > state, whether for an ISA device or for an active-high SCI, we can't
> > use it for a PCI Interrupt Link.
> > 
> > It'd be nice if there were a generic way we could figure out what the
> > trigger mode of an IRQ is.  I was hoping can_request_irq() was that
> > way, but I don't think it is, because it only looks at IRQF_SHARED,
> > not at IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW.
> > 
> > Maybe irq_get_trigger_type() is what we want?
> 
> Yes, that gives you the trigger typ, if the interrupt is already set up.
>  
> >   static int pci_compatible_trigger(int irq)
> >   {
> >     int type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq);
> > 
> >     return (type == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW || type == IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
> >   }
> > 
> >   static unsigned int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
> >   {
> >     unsigned int penalty = 0;
> > 
> >     if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt)
> >       penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> > 
> >     penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> >     return penalty;
> >   }
> > 
> >   static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
> >   {
> >     unsigned int best = ~0;
> >     ...
> > 
> >     for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
> >       candidate = link->irq.possible[i];
> >       if (!pci_compatible_trigger(candidate))
> >         continue;
> > 
> >       penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(candidate);
> >       if (penalty < best) {
> >         irq = candidate;
> >         best = penalty;
> >       }
> >     }
> >     ...
> >   }
> > 
> > This looks racy, because we test irq_get_trigger_type() without any
> > kind of locking, and later acpi_register_gsi() calls
> > irq_create_fwspec_mapping(), which looks like it sets the new trigger
> > type.  But I don't know how to fix that.
> 
> Right, if that pci link allocation code can be executed concurrent, then you
> might end up with problem, but isn't that a problem even without
> irq_get_trigger_type()?

Yes.  It's not a new problem, I just noticed it since we're thinking
more about the details of what's happening here.

Bjorn