linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] brcmfmac: Handling the interrupt in ISR directly for non-OOB

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:	Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:06:29 -0700
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>
CC:	Wei Ni <wni@...dia.com>,
	"Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@...adcom.com>,
	rvossen@...adcom.com, krakesh@...dia.com, ldewangan@...dia.com,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	brcm80211-dev-list@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] brcmfmac: Handling the interrupt in ISR directly
 for non-OOB

On 08/27/2012 09:24 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 08/27/2012 12:25 PM, Wei Ni wrote:
>> In case of inband interrupts, if we handle the interrupt in dpc thread,
>> two level of thread switching takes place to process wifi interrupts.
>> One in SDHCI driver and the other in Wifi driver. This may cause the
>> system
>> instability.
> 
> Looking into the sdhci/mmc code indeed shows that the brcmfmac irq
> handler is not called in true IRQ context. So the dpc thread may add
> unnecessary complexity, but to me there is not indication that there is
> a stability issue.
> 
>> Because the SDHCI calls sdio_irq_thread() to handle the irq, this
>> thread locks
>> mmc host and calls wifi handler. It expects WiFi handler to be quick and
>> enables sdio interrupt from card at end. If wifi handler defers this
>> work for
>> a different thread, sdio_irq_thread() will be stuck on next wifi
>> interrupt
>> since mmc lock is not freed.
> 
> Not sure if I can follow this explanation. The isr is called with host
> claimed (by sdio_irq_thread) and all it does is at a linked list member
> and signal the dpc thread. After doing this the host is released.

Is the issue something like the ISR handler or first level of threading
does:

* Trigger DPC
* Re-enable interrupt

So that the interrupt then fires again before the triggered DPC can run
to handle/clear it, thus causing an interrupt storm?

Whereas handling the interrupt directly prevents this race condition?
--
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/