linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix return value of i8042_aux_test

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:	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:49:56 +0900 (JST)
From:	fernando@....ntt.co.jp
To:	"Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Fernando Luis VÃ¡zquez Cao 
	<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vojtech@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix return value of i8042_aux_test_irq

On Thu, July 26, 2007 11:10 pm, Alan Cox wrote:
>> The handler does handle the interrupt - both status and data registers
>> are read so from the keyboard controller point of view the interrupt
>> has been handled even if we happen to discard the data. As far as I
>> know IRQ12 is never shared by BIOS... Vojtech, do you remember why we
>> request IRQ12 with IRQF_SHARED?
>
> A small number of boxes do share IRQ12 and it was switched to shared for
> them.
If that is the case interrupt handlers should be able to determine whether
a certain interrupt comes from their respective devices, and return
IRQ_HANDLED or IRQ_NONE accordingly. Returning IRQ_HANDLED unconditionally
when IRQF_SHARED is set seems strange. Is this behavior intended?

-
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/