linux-kernel - Re: Interrupt flags mismatch check in __setup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VcMyefYBD3AKGFC_tg4BFTPOaRU2N9xKAnzcJP32A3YCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Aug 2018 23:37:28 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Zijlstra, Peter" <peter.zijlstra@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Interrupt flags mismatch check in __setup_irq()

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Shevchenko, Andriy
<andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
> Hi!

>
> Recently I have experienced some nasty issue
>
> genirq: Flags mismatch irq 18. 00002000 (intel_mrfld_pwrbtn) vs.
> 00002000 (bcove_irq_chip_pwrbtn)
>
> but it is not a merit of my message here.
>
> While trying to understand the logic behind real code and what is wished
> (based on a comment) I have got differences.

Okay, nevermind, I miscalculate the parens in my code.

But still good to have a script to check :-)

>
> Thus, I wrote small python script [1] to understand better.
> I assume it has few false-positives, but I also believe that logic and
> comment are not in alignment and we might need to fix logic, comment, or
> both.
>
> Can you check that script and tell me if there is (in __setup_irq()
> check) an issue or not?
>
> [1]: https://gist.github.com/andy-shev/b85c5129fcfe63cb88849805e5a7e3a4
>
> P.S. Small explanation, the functions are mapped to the following logic:
>
> codebase() - repeats what we have in kernel
> comment() - my understanding how it's supposed to work
> algo() - abstraction of algorithm, so, can be extended thru the RULES
> set
>
> It prints out in case when codebase() != comment() for the same pair of
> flags.
>
> --
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
> Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko