linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support

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

Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:44:12 +0200
From:   Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        <arnd@...db.de>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        <bruherrera@...il.com>, <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts
 support



On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>> On 09/14/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> Now what really bugs me is that you do that at all. An interrupt which is
>>> freed must be masked already. Why is it unmasked in the first place?
>>
>> Honestly I don't know. When "devm_free_irq" is called to release virq, there
>> is no issue and interrupt is well masked. But, when I tried to use
>> "irq_dispose_mapping(virq)" I observed that .free is called (child and parent
>> domain) but interrupt is not masked.
>
> Well, you just used some function in some context which is not relevant to
> the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no value.

I agree. I just wanted to "force" a test for .free callback. If it not 
relevant I'll remove ".free" callback of exti domain.
As a part of this series has already been taken by Linus (pinctrl part), 
I will send a new series only for irqchip part (patches [1] and [2]). Do 
you agree ?

Thanks
Alex


>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx
>