linux-kernel - Should xhci_irq() call usb_hc

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

Message-ID: <20161210002616.GA8381@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2016 18:26:16 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Should xhci_irq() call usb_hc_died()?

Hi Mathias,

ehci_irq(), ohci_irq(), fotg210_irq(), and oxu210_hcd_irq() contain code
equivalent to this:

  status = ehci_readl(...);
  if (status == ~(u32) 0) {
    ...
    usb_hc_died(hcd);
    ...
    return IRQ_HANDLED;
  }

xhci_irq() has a similar check, but does not call usb_hc_died():

  status = readl(...);
  if (status = 0xffffffff) {
    ...
    return IRQ_HANDLED;
  }

Should xhci_irq() also call usb_hc_died()?  Maybe there's some reason
for it to be different than the others, but it wasn't obvious to this
casual observer :)

Bjorn