linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpiolib: Handle immutable 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]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdbEDoPeu=TWmsJ_t-4+NtyiiSCXoj9rymspZt0nC+yrsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:44:43 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>,
        Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] gpiolib: Handle immutable irq_chip structures

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 4:44 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:

> I recently realised that the gpiolib play ugly tricks on the
> unsuspecting irq_chip structures by patching the callbacks.

Sorry about that...

> My current approach is to add a new irq_chip flag (IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE)
> which does what it says on the tin: don't you dare writing there.
> Gpiolib is further updated not to install its own callbacks, and it
> becomes the responsibility of the driver to call into the gpiolib when
> required. This is similar to what we do for other subsystems such as
> PCI-MSI.

OK if there is a precedent it is usually wise to follow.

> I'd welcome comments on the approach. If deemed acceptable, there are
> another 300+ drivers to update! Not to mention the documentation. I
> appreciate that this is a lot of potential changes, but the current
> situation is messy.

I'm happy with this approach as long as the 300+ drivers get fixed
and the old way of doing it gets deleted.

Yours,
Linus Walleij