linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc2] at91

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:	Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:04:02 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@....atmel.com>,
	Andrew Victor <linux@...im.org.za>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.28-rc2] at91_mci: workaround lockdep

On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 14:26 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> From: David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> 
> Lockdep reported a problem in the at91_mci driver ... in this case, the
> issue is with lockdep, not with the driver.  A trimmed stack dump, from
> trying to boot with root on MMC, shows:
> 
>   WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2195 trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xf4/0x170()
>   Modules linked in:
>   [<c005bc98>] (trace_hardirqs_on+0x0/0x18) from [<c0213bf4>] (_spin_unlock_irq+0x2c/0x3c)
>   [<c0213bc8>] (_spin_unlock_irq+0x0/0x3c) from [<c0029a88>] (flush_dcache_page+0x114/0x144)
>   [<c0029974>] (flush_dcache_page+0x0/0x144) from [<c019b034>] (at91_mci_irq+0x150/0x414)
>   [<c019aee4>] (at91_mci_irq+0x0/0x414) from [<c0066c5c>] (handle_IRQ_event+0x2c/0x6c)
>   [<c0066c30>] (handle_IRQ_event+0x0/0x6c) from [<c0068a60>] (handle_level_irq+0x108/0x124)
>   [<c0068958>] (handle_level_irq+0x0/0x124) from [<c0022064>] (__exception_text_start+0x64/0x90)
> 
> When __flush_dcache_aliases() returns -- inlined into flush_dcache_page(),
> above -- it re-enables IRQs ... since that evidently may only be called with
> IRQs enabled.  That's OK since the (unshared) IRQ handler doesn't ask for IRQs
> to be disabled.   Except ... that lockdep went and disabled them, then went on
> to complains about the breakage *it* caused!
> 
> Workaround: depend on LOCKDEP=n ... and for paranoia, disable IRQF_SHARED
> for this interrupt.  (At the hardware level, this is dedicated to MCI, so
> there's never a need for multiple handlers.)

In all previous such cases it was deemed the IRQ handler should deal
with whatever it gets.

--
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/