[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MW5PR84MB184274E28D83DC337B486CEFAB432@MW5PR84MB1842.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:40:35 +0000
From: "Elliott, Robert (Servers)" <elliott@....com>
To: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>,
"jarkko@...nel.org"
<jarkko@...nel.org>,
"peterhuewe@....de" <peterhuewe@....de>
CC: "LinoSanfilippo@....de" <LinoSanfilippo@....de>,
"p.rosenberger@...bus.com" <p.rosenberger@...bus.com>,
"lukas@...ner.de"
<lukas@...ner.de>, "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] tpm,tpm_tis: Avoid warning splat at shutdown
> From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 5:37 AM
> Subject: [PATCH] tpm,tpm_tis: Avoid warning splat at shutdown
>
> If interrupts are not activated the work struct 'free_irq_work' is not
> initialized. This results in a warning splat at module shutdown.
>
> Fix this by always initializing the work regardless of whether interrupts
> are activated or not.
That's using flush_work(), which just waits for one to complete. Is there
any case where multiple work entries could be queued, and cancel_work_sync()
would be necessary?
tpm_tis_probe_irq() has a loop calling tpm_tis_probe_irq_single()
for 3 to 15. Could each of those could trigger an interrupt storm and
call tpm_tis_revert_interrupts(), which calls schedule_work()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists