linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] request_irq() always returns -EINVAL with a NULL handler.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200802041655.36772.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:55:36 +1100
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] request_irq() always returns -EINVAL with a NULL handler.

On Sunday 03 February 2008 17:15:02 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:57:58 +1100 Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> 
wrote:
> > I assume that these ancient network drivers were trying to find out if
> > an irq is available.  eepro.c expecting +EBUSY was doubly wrong.
> >
> > I'm not sure that can_request_irq() is the right thing, but these drivers
> > are definitely wrong.
> >
> > request_irq should BUG() on bad input, and these would have been found
> > earlier.
>
> This breaks non-CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS architectures.
>
> alpha:
>
> drivers/net/3c503.c: In function 'el2_open':
> drivers/net/3c503.c:382: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'can_request_irq'

Since this code was non-functional before, should we just be removing 
the "check if irq is free" check altogether?

This is Jeff's call, I think.

Rusty.
--
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/