linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] x86/apic: Do not make an exception for PIC_CASCADE_IR when marking legacy irqs in irq

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:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:18:39 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] x86/apic: Do not make an exception for PIC_CASCADE_IR when marking legacy irqs in irq_matrix

On Wed, Mar 17 2021 at 21:14, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19 2021 at 12:31, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Even without looking at the machine I can tell you what's going on. MP
> config or ACPI has a pin assigned to IRQ 2 which I've not seen before.
> The code there is ignoring IRQ 2 because that's how the original code
> worked as well as it is reserved for the PIC_CASCADE_IRQ which should
> never fire and we actually want to catch an spurious interrupt on it.
>
> So depending on the overall configuration of that system and the
> resulting delivery modes this might be ok, but I'm really nervous about
> doing this wholesale as it might break old machines.
>
> Out of paranoia I'd rather ignore that IO/APIC pin completely if it
> claims to be IRQ2. I assume there is no device connected to it at all,
> right?

Seems at some point we lost the 'ignore cascade IRQ' logic in
IO/APIC. There is still a comment to that effect.

Let me do some archaeology.

Thanks,

        tglx