[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CSU4LJ3ILUX5.1PHMGJXF2U2TC@suppilovahvero>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 04:44:12 +0300
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Lukas Wunner" <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc: "Lino Sanfilippo" <LinoSanfilippo@....de>, <peterhuewe@....de>,
<jgg@...pe.ca>, <jsnitsel@...hat.com>, <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
<oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev>, <lkp@...el.com>,
<peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<linux@...ewoehner.de>, <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>,
<p.rosenberger@...bus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: Handle interrupt storm
On Tue May 23, 2023 at 10:46 PM EEST, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:00:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > I feel also a bit resistant because leaf driver framework is really
> > a wrong location in the kernel tree for IRQ storm detection.
> >
> > It would be better to have it signaled above the TPM driver, and the
> > driver would then just act on it.
>
> That would require changing the logic in kernel/irq/spurious.c.
>
> At this point in the cycle, such a change would definitely not be
> eligible as a fix for v6.4.
No disagreeing with this. Just pointed it out.
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists