linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13

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, 11 Jul 2017 08:40:10 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Ah. Now that makes sense.
>
> Unpatched the ordering is:
>
>           chip_bus_lock(desc);
>           irq_request_resources(desc);

I *looked* at that ordering and then went "Naah, that makes no sense".

But if that's the only issue, how about we just re-order those things
- we still don't need to move the irq_request_resources() into the
spinlock, we just move it to below the chip_bus_lock().

IOW, something like the (COMPLETELY UNTEESTED!) attached patch.

This assumes that the chip_bus_lock() thing is still ok for the RT
case, but it looks like it might be: the only other one I looked at
(apart from the gpio-omap one) used a mutex.

             Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/plain" (1163 bytes)