linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: altera-msi: Remove irq handler and data in one go

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:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 14:50:42 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
Cc:     Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@...el.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        rfi@...ts.rocketboards.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
        Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
        Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>,
        Toan Le <toan@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: altera-msi: Remove irq handler and data in one go

On Thu, Nov 12 2020 at 12:28, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11 2020 at 16:16, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:43:55PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
>> Thomas, it looks like irq_domain_set_info() and msi_domain_ops_init()
>> set the handler itself before setting the handler data:
>>
>>   irq_domain_set_info
>>     irq_set_chip_and_handler_name(virq, chip, handler, ...)
>>     irq_set_handler_data(virq, handler_data)
>>
>>   msi_domain_ops_init
>>     __irq_set_handler(virq, info->handler, ...)
>>     if (info->handler_data)
>>       irq_set_handler_data(virq, info->handler_data)
>>
>> That looks at least superficially similar to the race you fixed with
>> 2cf5a03cb29d ("PCI/keystone: Fix race in installing chained IRQ
>> handler").
>>
>> Should irq_domain_set_info() and msi_domain_ops_init() swap the order,
>> too?
>
> In theory yes. Practically it should not matter because that happens
> during the allocation way before the interrupt can actually fire.  I'll
> have a deeper look nevertheless.

So I had a closer look and the reason why it only matters for the
chained handler case is that

   __irq_set_handler(..., is_chained = true, ...)

starts up the interrupt immediately. So the order for this _must_ be:

    set_handler_data() -> set_handler()

For regular interrupts it's really the mapping and allocation code which
does this long before the interrupt is started up. So the ordering does
not matter because the handler can't be reached before the full
setup is finished and the interrupt is actually started up.

Thanks,

        tglx