linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: Add spi controller driver support for NUC900

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: <20091118234928.8d86a9f9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:49:28 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-spi <spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	David Brownell-sourceforge <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Add spi controller driver support for NUC900

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:23:49 +0800 Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@...il.com> wrote:

> >> +static int __devexit w90p910_spi_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> + __ __ struct w90p910_spi *hw = platform_get_drvdata(dev);
> >> +
> >> + __ __ platform_set_drvdata(dev, NULL);
> >> +
> >> + __ __ spi_unregister_master(hw->master);
> >> +
> >> + __ __ clk_disable(hw->clk);
> >> + __ __ clk_put(hw->clk);
> >
> > As far as I can tell, a hardware interrupt could still be pending, or
> > be under service while the above code is executing?
> >
> > If so, I expect bad things will happen?
> 
> Do you mean that I should put this 'free_irq()' in the front of
> w90p910_spi_remove___
> 
> such as:
> "
> free_irq(hw->irq, hw);
> 
> platform_set_drvdata(dev, NULL);
> 
> spi_unregister_master(hw->master);
> 
> clk_disable(hw->clk);
> clk_put(hw->clk);

I don't know, because I don't know what operation the hardware needs to
stop it from generating interrupts.  Perhaps that's clk_disable()?

Once you've stopped the source of interrupts then the code should wait
for the IRQ handler to complete if it's running on another CPU.  Yes,
free_irq() does that.

It's only after the clk_disable() and the free_irq() that you can
guarantee that no interrupt handler will run and attempt to access the
device and its associated data structures.

--
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/