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 17:50:55 +0900 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> To: Valentin Rothberg <valentin.rothberg@...teo.net>, 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 On 18.02.2016 17:46, Valentin Rothberg wrote: > > > 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. The handler is "irq_nested_primary_handler". >> 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. Yet, this is somehow subtle (device inter-dependencies) so it falls out of static into runtime (I mean runtime analysis is needed). Best regards, Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists