linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in mwifiex_sdio

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: <866da517-4b5c-492e-56d0-260afeb55ded@broadcom.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:49:09 +0200
From:   Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: propagate error if IRQ request fails in
 mwifiex_sdio_of()



On 18-08-16 21:29, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Arend,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your feedback.
> 
> On 08/18/2016 03:14 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 18-08-16 16:17, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> If request_irq() fails in mwifiex_sdio_probe_of(), only an error message
>>> is printed but the actual error is not propagated to the caller function.
>>
>> Hmm. The caller function, ie. mwifiex_sdio_probe(), does not seem to care.
>>
> 
> Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. It's checking the wifiex_sdio_probe_of()
> return value.

Ok. I looked at 4.7 sources on lxr [1].

> If the IRQ request failing is not an error, then at the very least the call
> to disable_irq() should be avoided if request_irq() fails, and the message
> should be changed from dev_err() to dev_dgb() or dev_info().

agree.

>> The device may still function without this wake interrupt.
>>
> 
> That's correct, the binding says that the "interrupts" property in the child
> node is optional since is just a wakeup IRQ. Now the question is if should
> be an error if the IRQ is defined but fails to be requested.

Clearly it indicates an error in the DT specification so behavior is not
as expected. Personally I would indeed consider it an error, but I was
just indicating that it might have done like this intentionally.

Regards,
Arend

[1]
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c#L192

>> Regards,
>> Arend
>>
> 
> Best regards,
>