linux-kernel - Re: i915_driver_irq_handler: irq 42: nobody cared [generic IRQ handling broken?]

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:	Fri, 06 Apr 2012 23:31:43 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
CC:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, daniel@...ll.ch,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: i915_driver_irq_handler: irq 42: nobody cared [generic IRQ handling
 broken?]

On 03/30/2012 02:24 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:11:47 +0200, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:
>> On 03/30/2012 12:45 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:59:28 +0200, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:
>>>> I don't know what to dump more, because iir is obviously zero too. What
>>>> other sources of interrupts are on the (G33) chip?
>>>
>>> IIR is the master interrupt, with chained secondary interrupt statuses.
>>> If IIR is 0, the interrupt wasn't raised by the GPU.
>>
>> This does not make sense, the handler does something different. Even if
>> IIR is 0, it still takes a look at pipe stats.
> 
> That was introduced in 05eff845a28499762075d3a72e238a31f4d2407c to close
> a race where the pipestat triggered an interrupt after we processed the
> secondary registers and before reseting the primary.
> 
> But the basic premise that we should only enter the interrupt handler
> with IIR!=0 holds (presuming non-shared interrupt lines such as MSI).

Ok, this behavior is definitely new. I get several "nobody cared" about
this interrupt a week. This never used to happen. And something weird
emerges in /proc/interrupts when this happens:
 42:    1003292    1212890   PCI-MSI-edge      �s����:0000:00:02.0
instead of
 42:    1006715    1218472   PCI-MSI-edge      i915@pci:0000:00:02.0

It very looks like the generic IRQ handling code is broken. Like it
frees/corrupts irq_desc and then as well calls random handlers.

Suspend/resume cycle helps in this case and "i915@pci:0000:00:02.0" is
back in /proc/interrupts as can be seen above.

Running 3.3.0-next-20120326_64+ now.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs

--
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/