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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:26:55 +0800
From:   Fenglin Wu <>
To:     Stephen Boyd <>, <>,
CC:     <>, <>,
        Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 1/9] spmi: pmic-arb: add a print in cleanup_irq

On 10/14/2021 3:35 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-12 21:15:42)
>> On 10/13/2021 1:46 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-09-16 23:32:56)
>>>> From: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <>
>>>> The cleanup_irq() was meant to clear and mask interrupts that were
>>>> left enabled in the hardware but there was no interrupt handler
>>>> registered for it. Add an error print when it gets invoked.
>>> Why? Don't we get the genirq spurious irq message in this scenario?
>> Thanks for reviewing the change.
>> No, there is no existing message printed out in this special case ( IRQ
>> fired for not registered interrupt).
> Ah I see so the irq doesn't have a flow handler? Shouldn't you call
> handle_bad_irq() in this case so we get a irq descriptor print?
In such case, the irq number is not valid and there won't be a valid
irq_desc, hence it's not possible to call handle_bad_irq() here.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists