linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: qcom-labibb: avoid unbalanced IRQ enable

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 03 Feb 2021 08:15:21 +0200
From:   Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To:     AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: qcom-labibb: avoid unbalanced IRQ enable

Hello Angelo,

On Tue, 2021-02-02 at 15:42 +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 02/02/21 08:36, Matti Vaittinen ha scritto:
> > If a spurious OCP IRQ occurs the isr schedules delayed work
> > but does not disable the IRQ. The delayed work assumes IRQ was
> > disabled in handler and attempts enabling it again causing
> > unbalanced enable.
> > 
> 
> You break the logic like this. Though, I also see the problem.
> It is critical for the recovery worker to be executed whenever we
> enter
> the OCP interrupt routine, as we get in there only something wrong
> happened.

Then the comment just above this check should be adjusted. It states:
/*
 * If we (unlikely) can't read this register, to prevent hardware
 * damage at all costs, we assume that the overcurrent event was
 * real; Moreover, if the status register is not signaling OCP,
 * it was a spurious event, so it's all ok.
 */

The " if the status register is not signaling OCP, it was a spurious
event, so it's all ok." is incredibly misleading. That comment combined
with comment above qcom_labibb_check_ocp_status()

 * This function checks the STATUS1 register for the VREG_OK bit: if it
is
 * set, then there is no Over-Current event.
 *
 * Returns: Zero if there is no over-current, 1 if in over-current or
 *          negative number for error

made me to _assume_ that when qcom_labibb_check_ocp_status returns zero
we have spurious event - for which just returning the IRQ_NONE should
be perfectly sane thing to do.

> Please fix this patch.
> P.S.: You can't disable irq before qcom_labibb_check_ocp_status;
>        perhaps just after it, or in the if branch before goto?

As I said, I don't have the HW or specifications or expertise with this
IC. If this was not spurious event then I don't know what is the right
thing to do. I am just shooting this blindly. Feel free to take over
this fix and also adjust the comments so that they match the HW
behaviour :)

Best Regards
	--Matti