linux-kernel - Re: [Linuxarm] [PATCH for next v1 0/2] gpio: few clean up patches to replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin

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]

Message-ID: <1a5dfcf2-11a2-f549-782d-447d58e21305@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:24:28 +0800
From:   luojiaxing <luojiaxing@...wei.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        "Kevin Hilman" <khilman@...nel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linuxarm@...neuler.org>
Subject: Re: [Linuxarm] [PATCH for next v1 0/2] gpio: few clean up patches to
 replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock


On 2021/2/8 21:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:11 AM luojiaxing <luojiaxing@...wei.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, my operation error causes a patch missing from this patch set. I
>> re-send the patch set. Please check the new one.
> What is the new one?! You have to give proper versioning and change
> log for your series.


sure, I will send a new one later, but let me answer your question first.


>
>> On 2021/2/8 16:56, Luo Jiaxing wrote:
>>> There is no need to use API with _irqsave in hard IRQ handler, So replace
>>> those with spin_lock.
> How do you know that another CPU in the system can't serve the
> following interrupt from the hardware at the same time?


Yes, I have some question before.


There are some similar discussion here,  please take a look, Song baohua 
explained it more professionally.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e949a474a9284ac6951813bfc8b34945@hisilicon.com/


Here are some excerpts from the discussion:


I think the code disabling irq in hardIRQ is simply wrong.
Since this commit
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e58aa3d2d0cc
genirq: Run irq handlers with interrupts disabled

interrupt handlers are definitely running in a irq-disabled context
unless irq handlers enable them explicitly in the handler to permit
other interrupts.


Thanks

Jiaxing


>