linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip/tango: Don't use incorrect irq_mask

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: <3b858e14-0da1-d4aa-eb84-f136ece8c2a6@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:20:05 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>,
        Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>
Cc:     Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip/tango: Don't use incorrect irq_mask_ack
 callback

On 07/25/2017 06:29 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com> writes:
> 
>> On 25/07/2017 15:16, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>
>>> What happened to the patch adding the proper combined function?
>>
>> It appears you're not CCed on v2.
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9859799/
>>
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Yes, you understand correctly.  The irq_mask_ack method is entirely
>>> optional and I assume that is why this issue went undetected for so
>>> long; however, it is slightly more efficient to combine the functions
>>> (even if the ack is unnecessary) which is why I chose to do so for my
>>> changes to the irqchip-brcmstb-l2 driver where I first discovered this
>>> issue.  How much value the improved efficiency has is certainly
>>> debatable, but interrupt handling is one area where people might care
>>> about such a small difference.  As the irqchip-tango driver maintainer
>>> you are welcome to decide whether or not the irq_mask_ack method makes
>>> sense to you.
>>
>> My preference goes to leaving the irq_mask_ack callback undefined,
>> and let the irqchip framework use irq_mask and irq_ack instead.
> 
> Why would you prefer the less efficient way?
> 

Same question here, that does not really make sense to me.

The whole point of this patch series is to have a set of efficient and
bugfree (or nearly) helper functions that drivers can rely on, are you
saying that somehow using irq_mask_and_ack is exposing a bug in the
tango irqchip driver and using the separate functions does not expose
this bug?
-- 
Florian