linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] mfd: pm8xxx: disassociate old virq if hwirq mapping already exists

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: <20190216002359.GA24752@basecamp>
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 19:23:59 -0500
From:   Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc:     andy.gross@...aro.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        lee.jones@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        marc.zyngier@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, shawnguo@...nel.org,
        dianders@...omium.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        nicolas.dechesne@...aro.org, niklas.cassel@...aro.org,
        david.brown@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] mfd: pm8xxx: disassociate old virq if hwirq
 mapping already exists

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 01:28:02PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Brian Masney (2019-02-15 05:47:33)
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 09:51:26PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.c b/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.c
> > > > index 8eb2528793f9..2f99a98ccee5 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/qcom-pm8xxx.c
> > > > @@ -380,6 +380,12 @@ static void pm8xxx_irq_domain_map(struct pm_irq_chip *chip,
> > > >                                   struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int irq,
> > > >                                   irq_hw_number_t hwirq, unsigned int type)
> > > >  {
> > > > +       unsigned int old_virq;
> > > > +
> > > > +       old_virq = irq_find_mapping(domain, hwirq);
> > > > +       if (old_virq)
> > > > +               irq_domain_disassociate(domain, old_virq);
> > > 
> > > Is it possible to pass 'true' for the 'realloc' argument to
> > > __irq_domain_alloc_irqs() and then this disassociate change isn't
> > > needed?
> > 
> > The kernel doc for __irq_domain_alloc_irqs() says that the realloc
> > parameter is mainly to support legacy IRQs. I don't think its a good
> > idea to add new code that'll stay past the end of this patch series
> > on top of that legacy interface.
> > 
> 
> Ok. The other side of the argument is that this is the only user of
> irq_domain_disassociate(), which may also be some sort of legacy
> interface that isn't supposed to be used. Looking at the commit that
> exposed it, it seems to be that it's there for legacy reasons.
> 
> commit 43a775916d63d1c822107b39987192ca5ced445c
> Author: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
> Date:   Mon Jun 9 16:20:05 2014 +0800
> 
>     genirq: Export irq_domain_disassociate() to architecture interrupt drivers
>     
>     Export irq_domain_disassociate() to architecture interrupt drivers,
>     so it could be used to handle legacy IRQ descriptors on x86.
> 
> So maybe we should just use the realloc argument and bury the
> disassociate API in irqdomain.c because it's not supposed to be used?
> Or does the realloc path not work for some reason?

I haven't tried the realloc path yet. Let's back up further so that we
are both starting with the same assumptions. Do you want to keep either
your proposed change (realloc argument) or the existing
irq_domain_disassociate change in mainline past the end of this patch
series? If it is going to continue to be a temporary shim that will be
reverted at the end of the patch series (like I did here), then I don't
see the point in this extra work since this patch is only here to keep
it bisectable and works. We're not using any legacy interfaces by the
end of this patch series.

Brian