linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] irqchip: RISC-V per-HART local interrupt controller driver

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: <a5f1346544aec6e6da69836b7a6e0a6e@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 31 May 2020 10:33:39 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Cc:     Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] irqchip: RISC-V per-HART local interrupt
 controller driver

On 2020-05-31 06:36, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 5:31 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:

[...]

>> >       plic_set_threshold(handler, PLIC_DISABLE_THRESHOLD);
>> 
>> Why do you need to both disable the interrupt *and* change the 
>> priority
>> threshold? It seems to be that one of them should be enough, but my
>> kno9wledge of the PLIC is limited. In any case, this would deserve a
>> comment.
> 
> Okay, I will test and remove "disable the interrupt" part from 
> plic_dying_cpu().

Be careful, as interrupt enabling/disabling is refcounted in order
to allow nesting. If you only enable on CPU_ON and not disable
on CPU_OFF, you will end-up with a depth that only increases,
up to the point where you hit the roof (it will take a while though).

I would keep the enable/disable as is, and drop the priority
setting from the CPU_OFF path.

>> >       return 0;
>> > @@ -260,7 +266,11 @@ static int plic_starting_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>> >  {
>> >       struct plic_handler *handler = this_cpu_ptr(&plic_handlers);
>> >
>> > -     csr_set(CSR_IE, IE_EIE);
>> > +     if (plic_parent_irq)
>> > +             enable_percpu_irq(plic_parent_irq,
>> > +                               irq_get_trigger_type(plic_parent_irq));
>> > +     else
>> > +             pr_warn("cpu%d: parent irq not available\n");
>> 
>> What does it mean to carry on if the interrupt cannot be signaled?
>> Shouldn't you error out instead, and leave the CPU dead?
> 
> The CPU is not dead if we cannot enable RISC-V INTC external
> interrupt because the Timer and IPIs interrupts are always through
> RISC-V INTC. The PLIC external interrupt not present for a CPU
> only means that that CPU cannot receive peripherial interrupts.
> 
> On a sane RISC-V system, if PLIC is present then all CPUs should
> be able to get RISC-V INTC external interrupt. Base on this rationale,
> I have put a warning for plic_parent_irq == 0.

Fair enough.

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...