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:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 12:59:11 -0500
From:   Mario Limonciello <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Hans de Goede <>,,
Cc:, LKML <>,
        Borislav Petkov <>
Subject: Re: PIC probing code from e179f6914152 failing

On 10/23/2023 12:50, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23 2023 at 11:17, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> On 10/23/2023 10:59, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> So the real question is WHY are the DISABLED/UNSET flags not set in the
>>> PIC case?
> Do you have an answer for this?

Here's the problematic call path:

->->__acpi_register_gsi() [ Which is acpi_register_gsi_ioapic() ]

In the legacy PIC programmed case this function can overwrite level and 
active when acpi_register_gsi() is called.

Without the change I made in the NULL PIC case it can't.
So the resources get disabled by acpi_dev_get_irqresource().

>>>> NULL case:
>>>> handler:  handle_edge_irq
>>>> dstate:   0x3740c208
>>>>                IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW
>>>> PIC case:
>>>> handler:  handle_fasteoi_irq
>>>> dstate:   0x3740e208
>>>>                IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW
>>>>                IRQD_LEVEL
>>>> I guess something related to the callpath for mp_register_handler().
>>> Guessing is not helpful.
>>> There is a difference in how the allocation info is set up when legacy
>>> PIC is enabled, but that does not explain the above resource flag
>>> difference.
>> I did a pile of printks and that's how I realized it's because of the
>> missing call to mp_register_handler() which is dependent upon what
>> appeared to me to be a superfluous number of legacy IRQs check (patch 1
>> in my solution).
> What exactly is superfluous about these legacy checks?
> Thanks,
>          tglx

acpi_dev_get_irqresource() tries to set up to match what's in _CRS.
If acpi_register_gsi() fails, the resource can't get setup.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists