linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: pm8916_wdt: fix pretimeout registration flow

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190911175453.GA31612@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:54:53 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>,
        wim@...ux-watchdog.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] watchdog: pm8916_wdt: fix pretimeout registration
 flow

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:04:12AM +0200, Loic Poulain wrote:
> Hi Guenter, Jorge,
> 
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 00:50, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 9/6/19 1:30 PM, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote:
> > > When an IRQ is present in the dts, the probe function shall fail if
> > > the interrupt can not be registered.
> > >
> >
> > The author intended differently, and did not want registration to fail
> > in this situation, following the logic that it is better to have a
> > standard watchdog without pretimeout than no watchdog at all.
> >
> 
> Indeed, but I tend to agree with this change since it aligns behavior with
> other
> watchdog drivers and I assume there is a serious issue if request_irq fails.
> I suggest adding a dev_err message in such case.
> 
> Copying the author; I am not inclined to accept such a change without
> > input from the driver author.
> >
> > Similar, for the deferred probe, we'll need to know from the driver author
> > if this is a concern. In general it is, but there are cases where
> > -EPROBE_DEFFER is never returned in practice (eg for some SoC watchdog
> > drivers).
> >
> 
> The IRQ controller is the SPMI bus parent node whose driver (MFD_SPMI_PMIC)
> is a direct dependency of pm8916_wdt. I'm not sure in which scenario this
> could
> happen.
> 
Not sure what the action item is. Accept the patch as-is (Reviewed-by
appreciated), or resubmit without the -EPROBE_DEFER check ?

Thanks,
Guenter