linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] gpio: max77620: Don't handle disabled interrupts

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: <CAHp75VcEqTJxPj1pETC9eUsZCLwpv8tyZ7EjKvzzJTQ4wfKJyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jul 2020 13:11:02 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/5] gpio: max77620: Don't handle disabled interrupts

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:19 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
> 08.07.2020 11:46, Andy Shevchenko пишет:
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:29 AM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Check whether GPIO IRQ is enabled before proceeding with handling the
> >> interrupt request. The interrupt handler now returns IRQ_NONE if none
> >> of interrupts were handled, which is usually a sign of a problem.
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> -       pending = value;
> >> +       pending = value & gpio->irq_enb_mask;
> >
> >> +       if (!pending)
> >> +               return IRQ_NONE;
> >
> > for_each_set_bit() should take care of it, no?
>
> Do you mean that the handle_nested_irq() takes care of handling
> unrequested interrupts? Actually, looks like it cares. Alright, I'll
> drop this patch since it should be unnecessary. Thank you for the comment!

I think it's still good to have reduced IRQs to handle by dropping not
enabled ones, my comment was about the case when pending == 0. Sorry
if it was unclear.

> > (and probably return with IRQ_RETVAL() macro)
> >
> >>         for_each_set_bit(offset, &pending, MAX77620_GPIO_NR) {
> >>                 unsigned int virq;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko