linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iio: Improve the kernel-doc of iio_trigger

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: <ZADNexu/8SnwfI0B@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Mar 2023 18:23:23 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mehdi Djait <mehdi.djait.k@...il.com>
Cc:     jic23@...nel.org, lars@...afoo.de, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iio: Improve the kernel-doc of iio_trigger_poll

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 05:18:14PM +0100, Mehdi Djait wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 05:54:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:04:35PM +0100, Mehdi Djait wrote:
> > > Move the kernel-doc of the function to industrialio-trigger.c
> > > Add a note on the context where the function is expected to be called.

...

> > > v2:
> > > - Changed the expected context of from interrupt to hard IRQ context
> > 
> > Thank you for an update.
> > 
> > But it seems I messed up with this and my previous remark shouldn't be
> > taken into consideration.
> > 
> > The "relevant hardware interrupt handler" may be hard and threaded IRQ context,
> > which looks like your first version was correct.
> > 
> > Let's wait for Jonathan opinion on this as he is a native speaker.
> 
> If I understood the function correctly I think you were right. It should
> be hard IRQ context
> 
> The relevant functions calls:
> iio_trigger_poll --> generic_handle_irq --> handle_irq_desc
> 
> handle_irq_desc: returns Operation not permitted if !in_hardirq() && handle_enforce_irqctx 
> and it is the reason why the sysfs trigger uses the irq_framework to call iio_trigger_poll 
> from hard IRQ context [1][2]

Cool, thank you for elaboration!

In any case it's up to Jonathan now what to do. With your explanation it seems
correct to phrase as you did in v2. Hence,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>

> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/411605/ 
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1346922337-17088-1-git-send-email-lars@metafoo.de/

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko