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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:57:23 +0100
From:   "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <>
Subject: (repost) cleaning up handling of bad IRQs

Hello friends,

 << reposting, since first queue didn't go through completely, due to mailer problem >>

here's a patch queue for cleaning up the IRQ handling. Inspired by a
discussion we had on a previous patch of mine:

    "arch: fix 'unexpected IRQ trap at vector' warnings"

Turned out that the whole message, as it is right now, doesn't make much
sense at at all - not just incorrect wording, but also not quite useful
information. And the whole ack_bad_irq() thing deserves a cleanup anyways.

So, I've had a closer look and came to these conclusions:

1. The warning message doesn't need to be duplicated in the per architecture
   ack_bad_irq() functions. All, but one callers already do their own warning.
   Thus just adding a pr_warn() call there, printing out more useful data
   like the hardware IRQ number, and dropping all warnings from all the
   ack_bad_irq() functions.

2. Many of the ack_bad_irq()'s count up the spurious interrupts - lots of
   duplications over the various archs. Some of them using atomic_t, some
   just plain ints. Consolidating this by introducing a global counter
   with inline'd accessors and doing the upcounting in the (currently 3)
   call sites of ack_bad_irq(). After that, step by step changing all
   archs to use the new counter.

3. For all but one arch (x86), ack_bad_irq() became a no-op.

   On x86, it's just a call to ack_APIC_irq(), in order to prevent lockups
   when IRQs missed to be ack'ed on the APIC. Could we perhaps do this in
   some better place ? In that case, ack_bad_irq() could easily be removed

have fun,


Powered by blists - more mailing lists