linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] sh: Avoid using IRQ0 on SH3 and SH4

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: <c5ad5c59fcfa4888bd03fb8a855c989c@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:12:06 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'John Paul Adrian Glaubitz' <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:     Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        "linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] sh: Avoid using IRQ0 on SH3 and SH4

From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> Sent: 09 July 2023 00:13
....
> Looking at arch/sh/boards/mach-r2d/irq.c, there is some IRQ translation going
> on and maybe that's the part where we need to correct the offset by 16?

Would it be less problematic to use (say) 16 for IRQ_0
leaving IRQ_1+ as 1+ ?

At least that would only cause issues for code that needed
to use IRQ_0.

(It has to be said that making IRQ 0 invalid seemed wrong
to me. x86 (IBM PC) gets away with it because IRQ 0 is
always assigned to platform specific hardware.)

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)