linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70 check_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]

Message-ID: <20070810085611.GA11639@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:56:11 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, vignaud@...dmail.fr,
	marcin.slusarz@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	linux-net@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc2: WARNING: at kernel/irq/resend.c:70
	check_irq_resend()


* Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:

> > > [...] Well, there are probably (but need more testing) two other 
> > > solutions: _SW_RESEND and disabling without delay for levels 
> > > only...
> > 
> > IIRC Marcin tested software-resend and it didnt fix the hang. That 
> > strongly points in the direction of a driver bug (or a genirq bug) 
> > being made more prominent by the genirq change - not any hardware 
> > detail such as the APIC vector-retrigger sequence.
> > 
> > While we'd like to see the suspected driver bug (or any higher level 
> > genirq bug) fixed, we'll undo the effect of the genirq change 
> > (because it is causing a regression). We'll also add a separate, 
> > optional irq-debugging feature that generates high-rate interrupts 
> > on any shared irq line. (and thus artificially stresses the 
> > robustness of the driver and the genirq layer against spurious 
> > interrupts.)
> 
> Not exactly so... I've send modified version of your software-resend 
> patch, and it seems to work OK.

ah, i completely missed that! Thanks :-)

this changes the picture completely and makes the IO-APIC/local-APIC hw 
retrigger code/logic the main suspect. I think you right that it's quite 
bogus to hw-retrigger level irqs, and that could be confusing the 
IO-APIC (or the local APIC, or both).

and i think i see why my first sw-resend patch didnt do the trick:

> > -               if (!desc->chip || !desc->chip->retrigger ||
> > -                                       !desc->chip->retrigger(irq)) {
> > +               if (desc->handle_irq == handle_edge_irq) {
> > +                       if (desc->chip->retrigger)
> > +                               desc->chip->retrigger(irq);
> > +                       return;
> > +               }
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND

we used the hw-resend method unconditionally, right?

	Ingo
-
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/