linux-kernel - Re: common_interrupt: No irq handler for vector

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:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 21:41:14 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     "x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: common_interrupt: No irq handler for vector

On Mon, Dec 14 2020 at 09:11, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 12/12/20 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 11 2020 at 13:41, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> 
>>> I am debugging __common_interrupt: 1.55 No irq handler for vector
>>> messages and noticed comments and code don't agree:
>> 
>> I bet that's on an AMD system with broken AGESA BIOS.... Good luck
>> debugging it :) BIOS updates are on the way so I'm told.
>> 
> Interesting. The behavior I am seeing doesn't seem to be consistent
> with BIOS problem. I don't see these messages on 5.10-rc7. I started
> seeing them on stable releases. It started right around 5.9.9 and
> not present on 5.9.7.

What kind of machine?

> I am bisecting to isolate. Same issue on all stables 5.4, 4.19 and
> so on. If it is BIOS problem I would expect to see it on 5.10-rc7
> and wouldn't have expected to start seeing it 5.9.9.

Can you provide some more details, e.g. dmesg please?

>> No. It's perfectly correct in the MSI code. See further down.
>> 
>> 	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(this_cpu_read(vector_irq[cfg->vector])))
>> 		this_cpu_write(vector_irq[cfg->vector], VECTOR_RETRIGGERED);
>> 
>
> I am asking about inconsistent comments and the actual message as the
> comment implies if vector is VECTOR_UNUSED state, this message won't
> be triggered in common_interrupt. Based on that my read is the comment
> might be wrong if the code is correct as you are saying.

The comment says:

  >>    * anyway. If the vector is unused, then it is marked so it won't
  >>    * trigger the 'No irq handler for vector' warning in
  >>    * common_interrupt().

  If the vector is unused, then it is _marked_ so ....

It perhaps should explicitely say 'is marked as VECTOR_RETRIGGERED' to make
it clear.

Thanks,

        tglx