linux-kernel - irq_set_chained_handler() called too early for hwirq to be initialized

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:56:57 +0100
From:	Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>
To:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: irq_set_chained_handler() called too early for hwirq to be initialized

Hi,

consider arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/irq.c: irq_set_chained_handler() is
called at a point where it accesses
irq_to_desc(IRQ_LPC32XX_SUB2IRQ)->irq_data.hwirq but which is not yet
initialized.

(This bug just surfaced on lpc32xx when the chained interrupt controller
SIC2 wasn't working. SIC1 does, but just by chance: The uninitialized
value 0 is just coincidentally the correct one.)

...->hwirq is actually defined only later on in lpc32xx_init_irq() at
irq_domain_add_legacy(). Ideally, I would just move the
irq_set_chained_handler() calls to after of_irq_init() and
irq_domain_add_legacy(). Is this OK or does this produce any race condition?

Thanks in advance,

Roland
--
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/