linux-kernel - Re: v4.14 fix for Hikey 960 unbalanced IRQ enablement

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]

Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:05:28 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Rafael David Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@...aro.org>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        rui.zhang@...el.com, edubezval@...il.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v4.14 fix for Hikey 960 unbalanced IRQ enablement

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 04:24:48PM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> >> Greg,
> >>
> >> Patch 5 in this series seems to explain the best what is happening here:
> >>
> >>> With the following changes, we fix all in one:
> >>>
> >>> - Do the setup, one time, at probe time
> >>>
> >>> - Add the IRQF_ONESHOT, ack the interrupt in the threaded handler
> >>>
> >>> - Remove the interrupt handler
> >>>
> >>> - Set the correct value for the LAG register
> >>>
> >>> - Remove all the irq_enabled stuff in the code as the interruption
> >>>   handling is fixed
> >>>
> >>> - Remove the 3ms delay
> >>>
> >>> - Reorder the initialization routine to be in the right order
> >>
> >> We can't revert anything because the breakage was there since the driver
> >> was introduced.
> > 
> > So the driver was broken in 4.14, why not just use 4.19 instead?  This
> > isn't a 4.14 regression, it's something that obviously no one has
> > noticed for a year now, so why backport these big patches to 4.14 now?
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> > 
> 
> This was caught during our functional tests. No direct complains, but,
> since it included a trace, and there was a fix for it, I thought it
> could be accepted for upstream v4.14 (it is included in other v4.14
> kernels, like Android's).

Ok, all now queued up, thanks.

greg k-h