[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YqI0gRCF4YOTnRMi@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 19:57:21 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Julian Vetter <jvetter@...rayinc.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ysionneau@...rayinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] msi: Add sanity check if more than MAX_DEV_MSIS MSIs
are requested
On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 05:38:43PM +0200, Julian Vetter wrote:
> If a device requests more than MAX_DEV_MSIS the MSI index will collide with
> the devid and might cause Linux to compute twice the same virtual interrupt
> number for two different devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julian Vetter <jvetter@...rayinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@...rayinc.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/platform-msi.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform-msi.c b/drivers/base/platform-msi.c
> index 4b0b2fe3a7ff..627d8f6b83ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/platform-msi.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/platform-msi.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ static irq_hw_number_t platform_msi_calc_hwirq(struct msi_desc *desc)
> {
> u32 devid = desc->dev->msi.data->platform_data->devid;
>
> + WARN_ON(desc->msi_index >= MAX_DEV_MSIS);
So you just caused a system to reboot if you have panic-on-warn? What
is someone supposed to do if this is ever hit? Why can't you handle it
as an error and properly recover instead of just ignoring it?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists