linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] irq: add IRQF_TRIGGER

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703310953520.1780@nanos>
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:01:20 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Aniruddha Banerjee <aniruddhab@...dia.com>
cc:     Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] irq: add IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK on PPI by default

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Aniruddha Banerjee wrote:

> add IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK on PPI by default so that the PPIs are
> not configured as edge-triggered, which may be wrong for certain GIC
> implementations such as the GIC-400

The above is just useless blurb.

I can't figure out at all WHY a generic interface has anything to do with
edge trigger configuration.

I assume this is (Nvidia) GIC specific nonsense, so why are you inflicting
this on every caller of this interface unconditionally w/o explaining what
the impact of this change might be and why it does not cause havoc for any
existing caller?

This is function is implemented in kernel/irq/ not in foo/gic/ so you
better come up with some coherent explanation.

Thanks,

	tglx