linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: lan78xx: fix "enabled interrupts" warninig

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: <20190409092753.39961390@xhacker.debian>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 01:36:10 +0000
From:   Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>
To:     "RaghuramChary.Jallipalli@...rochip.com" 
        <RaghuramChary.Jallipalli@...rochip.com>
CC:     "marc.zyngier@....com" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        "Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com" <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>,
        "UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: lan78xx: fix "enabled interrupts" warninig

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:46:52 +0000  wrote:

> 
> 
> > > Is this warning specific to any linux version?  
> >
> > In theory, no. I only tested 5.0, 4.20, both can reproduce this warning.
> >  
> This makes me think that code is fine because it occurs in 4.20 and greater. Or maybe the problem is masked in older. I maybe wrong in assuming that.

Per my understanding, the warning should occur since commit cc89c323a30e
("lan78xx: Use irq_domain for phy interrupt from USB Int. EP")
I just bought a Raspberry Pi 3B+ a few days ago, so I didn't have chance
to check 4.19 and before.

> 
> >
> > The warning comes from calling generic_handle_irq() in usb tasklet context.
> > This is not correct.
> >
> > Per my understanding, if there's chained irq, we could introduce extra
> > irqdomain. E.g
> >
> > GIC <--> another irqchip controller <--> HW device
> >  
> Correct, IRQ domain is generally used in chained irq controllers.
> Yes, We need to check why irq domain is used in the current driver.
> 

It's introduced in the commit cc89c323a30e

Thanks