linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 09/14] irqchip/riscv-imsic: Add support for PCI MSI irqdomain

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: <87y1fmzja1.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2023 20:36:22 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
Cc:     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>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 09/14] irqchip/riscv-imsic: Add support for PCI MSI
 irqdomain

On Wed, Oct 25 2023 at 10:55, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> Now for IMSIC-PCI domain, the PCI framework expects the
>> pci_msi_mask/unmask_irq() functions to be called but if
>> we directly point pci_msi_mask/unmask_irq() in the IMSIC-PCI
>> irqchip then IMSIC-BASE (parent domain) irq_mask/umask
>> won't be called hence the IRQ won't be masked/unmask.
>> Due to this, we call both pci_msi_mask/unmask_irq() and
>> irq_chip_mask/unmask_parent() for IMSIC-PCI domain.
>
> Ok. I wont dig more into it for now! If the interrupt is disabled at
> PCI, it seems a bit overkill to *also* mask it at the IMSIC level...

Only _if_ the device provides MSI masking, but that extra mask/unmask is
not the end of the world.

Thanks,

        tglx