linux-kernel - Re: MSI irqchip configured as IRQCHIP_ONESHOT

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:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 23:38:11 +0200
From:   Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@...il.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     hkallweit1@...il.com, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        maz@...nel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: MSI irqchip configured as IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE causes spurious IRQs

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:15 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@...il.com> writes:
> > While debugging the root cause of spurious IRQ's on my PCIe MSI line it appears
> > that because of the line:
> >     info->chip->flags |= IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE;
> > in pci_msi_create_irq_domain()
> >
> > The IRQF_ONESHOT is ignored, especially when requesting IRQ through
> > pci_request_threaded_irq() where handler is NULL.
>
> Which is perfectly fine.
>
> > The problem is that the MSI masking now only surrounds the HW handler,
> > and all additional MSI that occur before the threaded handler is
> > complete are considered by the note_interrupt() as spurious.
>
> Which is not a problem as long as the thread finishes before 100k MSIs
> arrived on that line. If that happens then there is something really
> wrong. Either the device fires MSIs like crazy or the threaded handler
> is stuck somewhere.
>
> > Besides the side effect of that, I don't really understand the logic
> > of not masking the MSI until the threaded handler is complete,
> > especially when there's no HW handler and only threaded handler.
>
> What's wrong with having another interrupt firing while the threaded
> handler is running? Nothing, really. It actually can be desired because
> the threaded handler is allowed to sleep.
What do you mean, isn't it the purpose IRQ masking ?
Interrupt coalescing is done to mitigate these IRQ's, these HW
interrupts just consume
CPU cycles and don't do anything useful (scheduling an already
scheduled thread).
Thanks,
Ramon.
>
> Thanks,
>
>         tglx