linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, fix x86 fixup

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]

Date:	Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:09:09 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Rui Wang <rui.y.wang@...el.com>,
	Liu Ping Fan <kernelfans@...il.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Yoshihiro YUNOMAE <yoshihiro.yunomae.ez@...achi.com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
	Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
	Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Li Fei <fei.li@...el.com>, gong.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, fix x86 fixup_irqs() error handling

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Prarit Bhargava wrote:

> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> index d99f31d..55fab61 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
>  	struct irq_desc *desc;
>  	struct irq_data *data;
>  	struct irq_chip *chip;
> +	int ret;
>  
>  	for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
>  		int break_affinity = 0;
> @@ -389,8 +390,12 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
>  		if (!irqd_can_move_in_process_context(data) && chip->irq_mask)
>  			chip->irq_mask(data);
>  
> -		if (chip->irq_set_affinity)
> -			chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true);
> +		if (chip->irq_set_affinity) {
> +			ret = chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true);
> +			WARN(ret == -ENOSPC,
> +			     "IRQ %d set affinity failed with %d.  The device assigned to this IRQ is unstable.\n",
> +			     irq, ret);

Should this be WARN_ON_ONCE() to avoid filling the kernel log instead?

It doesn't make much sense to print out the negative return value, maybe 
you meant to print -ret instead?

> +		}
>  		else if (!(warned++))
>  			set_affinity = 0;
>  
--
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/