linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

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]

Message-ID: <55190910.3010905@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:28:00 +0800
From:	"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP ML <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [x86/platform, acpi] 7486341a98f: genirq: Flags mismatch
 irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)

Ying,

can you please try this patch to see if the problem is gone on your side?

Thanks,
-Aubrey


On 2015/3/26 20:13, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2015/3/25 15:22, Huang Ying wrote:
>> [   28.745155] genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)
> 
> okay, I replicated this on my side now.
> 
> Firstly, I don't think the patch did anything wrong. However, the patch
> exposes a few issues FWICT currently:
> 
> - Should we enable RTC Alarm the kind of Fixed hardware event in
> hardware-reduced ACPI mode? I found RTC required registers in ACPI PM
> block are not valid(register address = 0)
> 
> - I checked RTC device in ACPI table, there is no interrupt resource
> under RTC(firmware bug?), So irq 8 should be a hardcoded number. The
> question is, shouldn't we update bitmap of allocated_irqs here? Or we
> assume irq0~15 is reserved? If we assume IRQ0~15 is reserved, then
> requesting IRQ8 without updating bitmap of allocated_irqs is fine.
> 
> - Because we don't update bitmap of allocated_irqs when RTC request
> IRQ8, so when MMC driver allocate irq resource, it's possible it gets
> irq8, so we saw "genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (mmc0) vs.
> 00000000 (rtc0)". So here is another question, when we dynamically
> allocate irq from irq domain, shouldn't we start from IRQ16? Yes, if
> allocated_irqs bitmap is updated, then it should be fine if we start
> from IRQ1.
> 
> What the patch does is, it changes the behavior of how we allocate irq
> from irq domain. Previously we have legacy IRQs so we statically assign
> IRQ numbers for IOAPICs to host legacy IRQs, and now we allocate every
> IRQ dynamically.
> 
> For me I think I can deliver a patch against RTC driver to update
> allocated_irqs bitmap, also, we should free irq when we found RTC ACPI
> registers are not valid.
> 
> Certainly I'm open to any suggestions.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey
> 


View attachment "0001-x86-platform-acpi-Statically-assign-IRQ-numbers-in-A.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1756 bytes)