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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:46:04 +0100 From: Valentin Rothberg <valentin.rothberg@...teo.net> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>, ldewangan@...dia.com Cc: kbuild-all@...org, alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com, javier@....samsung.com, cw00.choi@...sung.com, a.zummo@...ertech.it, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: max77686: fix irqf_oneshot.cocci warnings Hi Krzysztof, On 2/18/16 9:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 18.02.2016 17:06, Valentin Rothberg wrote: >> From: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com> >> >> Since commit 1c6c69525b40 ("genirq: Reject bogus threaded irq requests") >> threaded IRQs without a primary handler need to be requested with >> IRQF_ONESHOT, otherwise the request will fail. >> >> So pass the IRQF_ONESHOT flag in this case. >> >> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/irqf_oneshot.cocci >> >> CC: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com> >> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> >> Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg <valentin.rothberg@...teo.net> >> --- >> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > > Nack, because: > 1. AFAIR this is a false positive. Looking at kernel/irq/manage.c +1250 such requests will be rejected unconditionally when the primary handler is NULL, except when the chip is marked to be oneshot safe. Is there another semantic that I am not aware of? In case the script produces false positives, I will change it immediately. > 2. Was it tested? Was it reproduced? Was the bug actually spotted or > just coccicheck pointed this and you assumed that "request will fail"? > > Coccicheck is a great tool... but not necessarily for pointing run-time > bugs. I did not test it. To me the issue rather seems seems like something where Coccinelle is really good at, static analysis. Kind regards, Valentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists