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:   Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:30:57 +0200
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@...vell.com>,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH - REGRESSION] mwifiex: don't enable/disable IRQ 0 during suspend/resume

Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> writes:

> If we don't have an out-of-band wakeup IRQ configured through DT (as
> most platforms don't), then we fall out of this function with
> 'irq_wakeup == 0'. Other code (e.g., mwifiex_disable_wake() and
> mwifiex_enable_wake()) treats 'irq_wakeup >= 0' as a valid IRQ, and so
> we end up calling {enable,disable}_irq() on IRQ 0.
>
> That seems bad, so let's not do that.
>
> Same problem as fixed in this patch:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9531693/
> [PATCH v2 2/3] btmrvl: set irq_bt to -1 when failed to parse it
>
> with the difference that:
> (a) this one is actually a regression and
> (b) this affects both device tree and non-device-tree systems
>
> While fixing the regression, also drop the verbosity on the parse
> failure, so we don't see this when a DT node is present but doesn't have
> an interrupt property (this is perfectly legal):
>
> [   21.999000] mwifiex_pcie 0000:01:00.0: fail to parse irq_wakeup from device tree
>
> Fixes: 853402a00823 ("mwifiex: Enable WoWLAN for both sdio and pcie")
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> ---
> This is a 4.10 regression. Not sure if it's critical to push quickly, or if it
> should just be tagged -stable and pushed in 4.11.

It's really late for 4.10, so I would rather push it to 4.11.

-- 
Kalle Valo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ