linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] clocksource: new RISC-V SBI timer driver

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: <f0a5a2e0-7f08-13cd-1758-f53494c1e391@wdc.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jul 2018 10:44:05 -0700
From:   Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>,
        "jason@...edaemon.net" <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        "marc.zyngier@....com" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@...-tech.org>,
        "anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "shorne@...il.com" <shorne@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] clocksource: new RISC-V SBI timer driver

On 7/27/18 7:38 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:51:56AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>> Should we follow the same prefix for these functions?
>> either timer_riscv* or riscv_timer* ?
>>
>> Apologies for overlooking this in my timer patch as wel
> 
> riscv_timer_* sounds saner to me, I can update that.
> 

Thanks.
>>> +	struct clock_event_device *evdev = this_cpu_ptr(&riscv_clock_event);
>>> +
>>
>> The comment about the purpose of clearing the interrupt in the original
>> patch is removed here. If that's intentional, it's fine.
>>
>> I thought having that comment helps understanding the distinction between
>> clearing the timer interrupt in SBI call & here.
> 
> Yes, that was intentional.  But given that I don't even understand why
> not using an ABI for architectural interrupt source enable/disable maybe
> I'm confused and should revisit that decision.
> 

I tried adding a new SBI call to disable the interrupts. However, I 
realized that it is not recommended to change the SBI unless absolutely 
required.

Here is the PR & following discussion.
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-pk/pull/108

Regards,
Atish