linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] irqchip: gic: always mask interrupts during suspend

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:	Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:48:26 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] irqchip: gic: always mask interrupts during suspend

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:34:39AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Other random thought: it seems like any irqchip driver which does lazy IRQ
> > masking ought to use IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND. So maybe the IRQ core should just
> > do something like:
> > 
> > 	if (!chip->irq_disable)
> > 		chip->flags |= IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND;
> 
> No. Lazy irq disable and the suspend logic are different beasts.

OK, fair enough. Drop that random thought then. It's not in the patch
content anyway.

> That's up to the platform to decide this. Just for the record: there
> is a world outside of ARM...

OK. But GIC is ARM-specific, so we can still constrain this patch and
related topics to the world of ARM.

> But that brings me to a different question:
> 
>     Why are you not putting that customization into the device tree
>     instead of trying to add this to some random arch/arm/mach-foo
>     files?

I'm not adding customization to arch/arm/mach-foo files. I'm trying to
remove it.

This property could be added to device tree, if there was really a valid
use case for a GIC which leaves its interrupts unmasked for suspend. My
question in this patch is essentially: does such a use case exist?

Brian
--
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/