linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] RISC-V: Don't fail in riscv_of_parent

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:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:59:40 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Cc:     Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
        Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] RISC-V: Don't fail in riscv_of_parent_hartid() for
 disabled HARTs

On Wed, Oct 25 2023 at 19:58, Anup Patel wrote:
> The riscv_of_processor_hartid() used by riscv_of_parent_hartid() fails
> for HARTs disabled in the DT. This results in the following warning
> thrown by the RISC-V INTC driver for the E-core on SiFive boards:
>
> [    0.000000] riscv-intc: unable to find hart id for /cpus/cpu@...nterrupt-controller
>
> The riscv_of_parent_hartid() is only expected to read the hartid from
> the DT so we should directly call of_get_cpu_hwid() instead of calling

We should? Or maybe not?

Please write precise changelogs and use imperative wording as documented
in Documentation/process.