linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: make the irqchip immutable

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, 13 Jul 2022 14:41:50 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: make the irqchip immutable

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:34:46 +0100,
Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 15:10, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 13:33:32 +0100,
> > Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 13:47, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2022-07-13 12:08, Robert Marko wrote:
> > > > > I will look at IRQ GPIO docs, but in this case, then we have more
> > > > > conversions that
> > > > > are not correct.
> > > >
> > > > Then please point them out.
> > >
> > > Oh, now I get the issue, I was misunderstanding it completely.
> > > gpiochip_enable_irq and gpiochip_disable_irq are not being called
> > > at all.
> > >
> > > However, I dont see them being called before the conversion as well.
> > > I am not really familiar with the PMIC IRQ-s, looked like an easy conversion
> > > to get rid of the warning.
> >
> > They definitely were. Look at how gpiochip_add_data() eventually ends
> > up calling gpiochip_set_irq_hooks((), which hijacks the irq_chip
> > function pointers to insert the calls to these helpers.
> 
> Well, that is the thing, since irqchip->irq_enable and
> irqchip->irq_disable were never populated in the SPMI GPIO driver,
> gpiochip_set_irq_hooks then does not insert them.
> During runtime, gpiochip_irq_enable and gpiochip_irq_disable are
> never used even before the conversion, that is what I am trying to
> convey.

It is the mask/unmask versions that would be used, with similar
effects.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.