linux-kernel - Interrupt flags mismatch check in __setup

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

Date:   Wed, 1 Aug 2018 20:05:08 +0000
From:   "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Zijlstra, Peter" <peter.zijlstra@...el.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Interrupt flags mismatch check in __setup_irq()

Hi!

Recently I have experienced some nasty issue

genirq: Flags mismatch irq 18. 00002000 (intel_mrfld_pwrbtn) vs.
00002000 (bcove_irq_chip_pwrbtn)

but it is not a merit of my message here.

While trying to understand the logic behind real code and what is wished
(based on a comment) I have got differences.

Thus, I wrote small python script [1] to understand better.
I assume it has few false-positives, but I also believe that logic and
comment are not in alignment and we might need to fix logic, comment, or
both.

Can you check that script and tell me if there is (in __setup_irq()
check) an issue or not?

[1]: https://gist.github.com/andy-shev/b85c5129fcfe63cb88849805e5a7e3a4

P.S. Small explanation, the functions are mapped to the following logic:

codebase() - repeats what we have in kernel
comment() - my understanding how it's supposed to work
algo() - abstraction of algorithm, so, can be extended thru the RULES
set

It prints out in case when codebase() != comment() for the same pair of
flags.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo