linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Input: snvs_pwrkey - only IRQ

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:06:01 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@....com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        André Draszik <git@...red.net>,
        Robin Gong <yibin.gong@....com>,
        Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Aymen Sghaier <aymen.sghaier@....com>,
        Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Input: snvs_pwrkey - only IRQ_HANDLED for our own
 events

Hi Marco,

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 09:55:13AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 20-07-23 10:43, Horia Geantă wrote:
> > From: André Draszik <git@...red.net>
> > 
> > The snvs_pwrkey shares the SNVS LPSR status register with the snvs_rtc.
> > 
> > This driver here should only return IRQ_HANDLED if the status register
> > indicates that the event we're handling in the irq handler was genuinely
> > intended for this driver. Otheriwse the interrupt subsystem will
> > assume the interrupt was handled successfully even though it wasn't
> > at all.
> 
> After checking the RM and the imx6qdl.dtsi I'm not very sure that this
> is right since the snvs-powerkey has a seperate irq-line. So we can be
> sure that this irq is for us. If this is the case we don't need to check
> the SNVS_LPSR_REG instead we only need to clear it.

Wouldn't we want to know if for some reason we get spurious interrupts?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry