linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for 4.12] Revert "pinctrl: rockchip: avoid hardirq-unsafe functions in irq

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: <20170627070731.GA23083@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:07:33 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        John Keeping <john@...anate.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "David.Wu" <david.wu@...k-chips.com>,
        '黄涛' <huangtao@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 4.12] Revert "pinctrl: rockchip: avoid hardirq-unsafe
 functions in irq_chip"

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:24:09PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Hmm so how come drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c can't use the generic
> dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq()? Can you please take a look?

I took a look previously, and last time I did, there were too many bugs
for it to be useful. You may have fixed the ones I reported w.r.t.
assumptions about runtime PM.

I also recall there being some difficulty with supporting
level-triggered interrupts that way. (This signal has no device-level
mask, and it triggers for all sorts of BT activity. There may not be a
relevant "edge".)

> If there are issues remaining let's rather fix them so we can get rid
> of the custom tinkering of wake-up events in the drivers.

That's nice, but that doesn't answer my questions. Perhaps that's a side
project. The point is that we're clearly violating the documented APIs.

Brian