linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] irq_dispose_mapping after irq request failure

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1360659217.2035.5.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:53:37 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
Cc:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] irq_dispose_mapping after irq request failure

On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 17:18 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> 
> I don't think you can, "active" is not well defined. Other code may have
> done nothing other than create the mapping and remembered the virq,
> which will break if you destroy the mapping. Or?

Active as in "requested". Yes there's a potential problems with multiple
requests for mappings & shared interrupts. This is not a problem for PCI
on powerpc because we don't free those mappings afaik.

> I agree refcounting is not fun. It'll end up with the same mess as
> of_node_get/put() where practically every 2nd piece of code leaks
> references.
> 
> I guess we can't go the other way, and say that mapping the same hwirq
> twice is an error.

Might be worth it, and force the sharing case to be handled at some kind
of upper level (bus or platform).

Ben.


--
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/