linux-kernel - Re: [Patch V1 1/4] memory: tegra: Add support for mc interrupts

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: <fb6a6827-06bf-992e-ed87-cb20eff3c19b@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jan 2022 16:42:07 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Ashish Mhetre <amhetre@...dia.com>, thierry.reding@...il.com,
        jonathanh@...dia.com, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Snikam@...dia.com, vdumpa@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [Patch V1 1/4] memory: tegra: Add support for mc interrupts

19.01.2022 11:47, Ashish Mhetre пишет:
> 
> 
> On 1/12/2022 1:43 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> 11.01.2022 21:45, Ashish Mhetre пишет:
>>>
>>> @@ -765,16 +768,21 @@ static int tegra_mc_probe(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>>                        return err;
>>>        }
>>>
>>> -     if (mc->soc->ops && mc->soc->ops->handle_irq) {
>>> +     if (mc->soc->interrupt_ops &&
>>> mc->soc->interrupt_ops->handle_irq) {
>>>                mc->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>                if (mc->irq < 0)
>>>                        return mc->irq;
>>>
>>>                WARN(!mc->soc->client_id_mask, "missing client ID mask
>>> for this SoC\n");
>>>
>>> +             /* clear any mc-errs that occurred before. */
>>
>> s/mc-errs/Memory Controller errors/
>>
> Sure, I'll update these in next version.
>>> +             if (mc->soc->interrupt_ops->clear_interrupt)
>>> +                     mc->soc->interrupt_ops->clear_interrupt(mc);
>>
>> There is no explanation of this change neither in the code, nor in the
>> commit message. Please always provide detailed descriptions for a
>> non-trivial changes.
>>
>> Interrupts aren't cleared intentionally by the driver, otherwise you'll
>> never know about early-boot memory faults which happened before the
>> probe. Hence this change is incorrect.
> That's true, we should be logging early-boot memory faults as well.
> Ideally there shouldn't be any early-boot faults as all clients will
> be up after MC, right? But I agree that we should be checking and
> logging if any interrupt is present.

Normally there won't be any errors during early boot, otherwise they
need to be fixed.