linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 01/21] irqchip: tegra: Do not disable COP IRQ during suspend

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: <dd01be5d-bab9-1329-c7ac-c3c893d49dd1@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:05:13 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
Cc:     Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@...dia.com>,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        jason@...edaemon.net, marc.zyngier@....com,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, stefan@...er.ch, mark.rutland@....com,
        pgaikwad@...dia.com, sboyd@...nel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, jckuo@...dia.com, josephl@...dia.com,
        talho@...dia.com, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mperttunen@...dia.com,
        spatra@...dia.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 01/21] irqchip: tegra: Do not disable COP IRQ during
 suspend

25.07.2019 12:55, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:54:51PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>
>> All Tegra SoCs support SC7, hence the 'supports_sc7' and the comment
>> doesn't sound correct to me. Something like 'firmware_sc7' should suit
>> better here.
>>
>>> +			writel_relaxed(~0ul, ictlr + ICTLR_COP_IER_CLR);
>>
>> Secondly, I'm also not sure why COP interrupts need to be disabled for
>> pre-T210 at all, since COP is unused. This looks to me like it was
>> cut-n-pasted from downstream kernel without a good reason and could be
>> simply removed.
> 
> I don't think we can rely on the fact that COP is unused. People can
> write their own code to run on COP.

1. Not upstream - doesn't matter.

2. That's not very good if something unknown is running on COP and then
kernel suddenly intervenes, don't you think so?