linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] irqchip: add J-Core AIC driver

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:	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:27:54 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] irqchip: add J-Core AIC driver

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 09:08:21AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:15:38AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 05:35:09AM +0000, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > For simplicity, there is no aic1-specific logic in the driver beyond
> > > setting the priority register, which is necessary for interrupts to
> > > work at all. Eventually aic1 will likely be phased out, but it's
> > > currently in use in deployments and all released bitstream binaries.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > +	if (!of_device_is_compatible(node, "jcore,aic2")) {
> > 
> > If this is only meant to run for AIC1, it would be better to check for
> > the "jcore,aic1" compatible string explicitly.
> > 
> > While that shouldn't matter much currently, it better matches the intent
> > described in the commit message, and avoids surprises and/or churn in
> > future if you have AIC3+.
> 
> My intent in doing this was to support a DT that might claim an aic2
> is aic1-compatible as a fallback "compatible" property. The hardware
> is designed such that this works (ignoring the spurious writes to
> unused prio registers) as long as the DT still has the right irq
> numbers for attached devices.

Ok.

If the HW ignores it, what's the cost of those one-off spurious writes?
If it's not noticeable, you could allow the kernel to perform them
regardless.

Otherwise, please add a comment above the check, explaining why we do
the check this way around.

Thanks,
Mark.