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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:33:49 +0200
From:   Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, <bruherrera@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        <lee.jones@...aro.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts
 support

Thomas,

On 09/20/2016 02:44 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>
>> Thomas,
>>
>> On 09/20/2016 11:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>>>> On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> A gentle reminder ping...
>>>> If ".free" callback is not relevant then I 'll remove it from exti domain.
>>
>> Sorry for discussing about the same thing again (and again) but I just want to
>> be sure before sending a new version. As you know I have 2 domains: EXTI
>> domain (parent) and stm32-pinctrl-bank domain (child one).
>>
>> There does it make sens to have ".free" callbacks defined in both domain
>> (actually if I define one for the child domain I have to define also ".free"
>> callback for parent domain (EXTI) as it is hierarchical) ?
>> If ".free" have no chance to be called then I will send a new version by
>> removing .free callbacks (in both domain).
>
> Free will be called when a interrupt in the child domain is torn down,
> i.e. when irq_domain_free_irqs() is called. And it will be called for both
> domains like the alloc callback is invoked on both domains via
> irq_domain_alloc_irqs().

Thanks Thomas for this clarification (I'm sure now that we need .free 
callbacks).
irq_domain_free_irqs() is called in 2 scenario:
1- when issue occurs in irq_create_fwspec_mapping()
2- when irq_dispose_mapping() is called

Case 2 is the one I tested some times ago. In this case, I need to mask 
interrupts in .free callback of EXTI (parent) domain to avoid spurious 
interrupts.

Regards

Alex


>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx
>
>
>
>