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: <20190725103348.GN12715@pdeschrijver-desktop.Nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:33:48 +0300
From:   Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.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

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 01:05:13PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 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.
> 

The code is not part of the kernel, so obviously it's not upstream?

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

Unless the code was written with this in mind.

Peter.