linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: max77686: fix irqf

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56C58D98.1020600@posteo.net>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:23:36 +0100
From:	Valentin Rothberg <valentin.rothberg@...teo.net>
To:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	ldewangan@...dia.com, kbuild-all@...org, 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 Alexandre,

On 2/18/16 9:51 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 18/02/2016 at 17:13:18 +0900, 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.
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Definitively a false positive.
> 
> Julia, I've been receiving quite a lot of those, is it possible to add a
> note that this generates false positives to try to stop people from
> blindly sending patches? I would have expected Valentin to know that
> though.

I don't have the device-specific knowledge for this issue.  It really
looked like a true positive to me, so I am sorry for the noise.

A warning about false positives seems promising.

Kind regards,
 Valentin