linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Skip deferred request irqs for devices known to fail

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]

Date:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 13:42:54 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ian W MORRISON <ianwmorrison@...il.com>
Cc:     benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com, hdegoede@...hat.com,
        mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        bgolaszewski@...libre.com, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Skip deferred request irqs for devices known to fail

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:05:15PM +1100, Ian W MORRISON wrote:

Thanks for the patch, my comments below.

> Patch ca876c7483b6 "gpiolib-acpi: make sure we trigger edge events at
> least once on boot" causes the MINIX family of mini PCs to fail to boot
> resulting in a "black screen". 

> This patch excludes MINIX devices from executing this trigger in order
> to successfully boot.

Hmm... Feels like this is symptomatic healing.
Hans, do you have anything in mind about this case?

>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
>  #include <linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h>
> +#include <linux/dmi.h>

This should be in order.

>  /* Run deferred acpi_gpiochip_request_irqs() */
> +/* but exclude devices known to fail */

/*
 * This should be done in the similar style
 * as for multi-line comments. Like this one.
 */

> +	dmi_id = dmi_first_match(skip_deferred_request_irqs_table);
> +

Redundant blank line.

> +	if (! dmi_id) {

No space here, however, better to write positive conditional.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko