linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/15] irqchip/gic: WARN if setting the interrupt type fails

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]

Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:20:34 +0100
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] irqchip/gic: WARN if setting the interrupt type fails

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com> wrote:
> On 17/03/16 15:18, Jason Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 03:04:01PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> On 17/03/16 14:51, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>> Setting the interrupt type for private peripheral interrupts (PPIs) may
>>>>> not be supported by a given GIC because it is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED
>>>>> whether this is allowed. There is no way to know if setting the type is
>>>>> supported for a given GIC and so the value written is read back to
>>>>> verify it matches the desired configuration. If it does not match then
>>>>> an error is return.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are cases where the interrupt configuration read from firmware
>>>>> (such as a device-tree blob), has been incorrect and hence
>>>>> gic_configure_irq() has returned an error. This error has gone
>>>>> undetected because the error code returned was ignored but the interrupt
>>>>> still worked fine because the configuration for the interrupt could not
>>>>> be overwritten.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that this has done undetected and we should only fail to set the
>>>>> type for PPIs whose configuration cannot be changed anyway, don't return
>>>>> an error and simply WARN if this fails. This will allows us to fix up any
>>>>> places in the kernel where we should be checking the return status and
>>>>> maintain back compatibility with firmware images that may have incorrect
>>>>> interrupt configurations.
>>>>
>>>> Though silently returning 0 is really the wrong thing to do. You can add the
>>>> warn, but why do you want to return success?
>>>
>>> Yes that would be the correct thing to do I agree. However, the problem
>>> is that if we do this, then after the patch "irqdomain: Don't set type
>>> when mapping an IRQ" is applied, we may break interrupts for some
>>> existing device-tree binaries that have bad configuration (such as omap4
>>> and tegra20/30 ... see patches 1 and 2) that have gone unnoticed. So it
>>> is a back compatibility issue.

Indeed (also for sh73a0 and r8a7779).

>> This sounds like a textbook case for adding a boolean dt property.  If
>> "can-set-ppi-type" is absent (old DT blobs and new blobs without the
>> ability), warn and return zero.  If it's present, the driver can set the
>> type, returning errors as encountered.
>
> True. However, if we did have this "can-set-ppi-type" property set for a
> device, it really should never fail (unless someone specified it
> incorrectly). So I am trying to understand the value in adding a new DT
> property.

Do we really want to add properties that basically indicate that a description
in DT is correct?

Alternatively, it can be fixed in the kernel in a DT quirk (if SoC == xxx then
fix TWD).

> Please note that gic_configure_irq() never used to return an error and
> only when adding support for setting the type of PPIs was this added.
> However, given that this has gone unnoticed and does not have a real
> functional impact on the device behaviour, I wonder now if this function
> should return an error? Yes, ideally, it should, but does it still make
> sense?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds