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 10:03:24 +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 9:50 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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). Thanks for your answer. I wasn't aware of this at all. Best regards, Valentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists