linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: factor in PCI possible

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]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gQeT41e07OuSKtWY_tER8O0-_F3M8h5MhaH+QTvoJzYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:25:28 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	eric.auger@...hat.com, Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, wim@....tudelft.nl,
	perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: factor in PCI possible

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 5:19 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>> On 6/29/2016 9:13 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
>>>>> resource requirements") omitted the initially assigned POSSIBLE penalty
>>>>> when the IRQ is active.
>>>>
>>>> It would be good to say what can go wrong with that here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can add more description. Here is a first attempt.
>>>
>>> Incorrect calculation of penalty leads to ACPI code assigning the wrong
>>> interrupt number to PCI INTx interrupts.
>>>
>>> This would not be as bad as it sounds in theory. You would just cause the
>>> interrupts to be shared and observe performance penalty.
>>>
>>> However, some drivers like parallel port driver doesn't like interrupt
>>> sharing as in this example and causes all other PCI drivers sharing the interrupt
>>> to malfunction.
>>>
>>> The issue has not been caught because the behavior is platform specific
>>> and depends on the peripheral drivers sharing the IRQ.
>>>
>>> I can claim that this could be a BIOS bug. if interrupt 7 is not good for PCI,
>>> it shouldn't have been listed in the possible PCI interrupts to begin with.
>>> Given this is an existing platform, I don't think we have the luxury to request
>>> all BIOS to be updated. This bugfix is needed to support existing platforms.
>>>
>>>
>>> Feel free to request more information if the above description is not clear.
>>
>> It is clear enough.  I can add it to the changelog when applying the patch.
>
> OK
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> The original code would assign the POSSIBLE value divided by the number
>>>>> of possible IRQs during initialization.
>>>>>
>>>>> Later, if the IRQ is chosen as the active IRQ or if the IRQ is in use
>>>>> by ISA; additional penalties get added.
>>
>> Does "later" here mean "later in that code path" or "in a later patch"?
>
> "later in that code path"

OK

I'm hoping we'll hear from the reporter shortly.

Thanks,
Rafael