linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] irqchip/gic-v3: Remove Mediatek pseudo-NMI firmware quirk handling

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: <CAD=FV=UVkE9k=o3-3UT2L172hhAH-gtpe5ByELN8srC+a-7mJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:01:54 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] irqchip/gic-v3: Remove Mediatek pseudo-NMI firmware
 quirk handling

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 4:08 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > This is a partial revert of commit 44bd78dd2b88 ("irqchip/gic-v3:
> > Disable pseudo NMIs on Mediatek devices w/ firmware issues"). In the
> > patch ("arm64: Disable GiC priorities on Mediatek devices w/ firmware
> > issues") we've moved the quirk handling to another place and so it's
> > not needed in the GiC driver.
> >
> > NOTE: this isn't a full revert because it leaves some of the changes
> > to the "quirks" structure around in case future code needs it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> > ---
>
> I think it might make sense to fold this into the patch adding the cpucap
> detection. Otherwise, if you apply my suggestions to the first patch, there's a
> 2-commit window where we'll have two places that log that NMI is being disabled
> due to the FW issue. That's not a functional issue, so doesn't matter that
> much.
>
> Either way:
>
> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>

I'm happy to go either way so I'd love some advice from maintainers
(Marc Zyngier, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon) about what you'd prefer.

-Doug