linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9] irq: add quirk for broken interrupt remapping on 55XX chipsets

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130416130759.GA9241@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Date:	Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:07:59 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz <arekm@...en.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] irq: add quirk for broken interrupt remapping on 55XX
 chipsets

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:24:54PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 06:41:17PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_REMAP
> > +static void __init intel_remapping_check(int num, int slot, int func)
> > +{
> > +	u8 revision;
> > +
> > +	revision = read_pci_config_byte(num, slot, func, PCI_REVISION_ID);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Revision 0x13 of this chipset supports irq remapping
> > +	 * but has an erratum that breaks its behavior, flag it as such
> > +	 */
> > +	if (revision == 0x13)
> > +		irq_remap_broken = 1;
> > +
> > +}
> > +#else
> 
> Any reason why you don't check this in the Intel IOMMU init code? You
> would safe the ifdefs and you don't have to include
> irq-remapping-internal header files somewhere else in the tree.
> 
> 
> 	Joerg
> 
Mostly because we've spent so much time early in this thread talking about where
the quirk should go, that after this last revision, it didn't even occur to me
that, using this new approach, we don't even need a quirk anymore.  That makes
way more sense to me though, I'll revise the patch again :(.

Neil

--
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/