linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/15] regmap: kill off set_irq

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: <20150609232029.GB14071@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:20:29 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arm@...nel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] regmap: kill off set_irq_flags usage

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 10:27:09PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> It's because there exist platforms where specific IRQs are permanently
> asserted, and unexpectedly claiming such an interrupt (eg, through IRQ
> probing) would lock the system - at least before we ended up with the
> detection in genirq (which has its roots in the ARM code.)

Ah, yes - now I remember.  I just had a vauge recollection of broken
probing.

> I'd suggest people think carefully about applying these patches.  They
> have only been around for a matter of hours, so to rush to apply them
> when they haven't been revewied as a whole to assess whether the approach
> is the right one is rather hasty.

I'm fairly comfortable with the patch for regmap as that code is
architecture neutral, should already have been consistent and the
non-ARM path has definitely been tested (I've done it myself).

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)