linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/18] arm64: cpufeature: Add a feature for FIQ support

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

Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 00:51:09 +0900
From:   Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     soc@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/18] arm64: cpufeature: Add a feature for FIQ support

On 08/02/2021 20.29, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> I'm not sure we want to trust the FW on that particular front (no
> offence intended...;-).

Hey, I don't even *use* the timers IRQs; if they are unmasked it's 
iBoot's fault! :-)

> That is my current take on this patch. Nothing in the arm64 kernel
> expects a FIQ today, so *when* a FIQ fires is pretty much irrelevant,
> as long as we handle it properly (panic). Keeping the two bits in sync
> is trivial, and shouldn't carry material overhead.

Sounds good then, and again that simplifies a ton of stuff. Will go for 
that in v2.

> Aside from the lack of programmable priority, the lack of convenient
> masking for per-CPU interrupts is a bit of an issue...

Yeah... we'll see how that goes.

-- 
Hector Martin (marcan@...can.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub