linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] irq/spurious: Account for multiple handles in note

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, 16 Feb 2024 17:18:15 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
	Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] irq/spurious: Account for multiple handles in note_interrupt

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 05:36:37PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 04:59:44AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Currently note_interrupt() will check threads_handled for changes and use
> > it to mark an IRQ as handled, in order to avoid having a threaded
> > interrupt to falsely trigger unhandled IRQ detection.
> > 
> > This detection can still be falsely triggered if we have many IRQ handled
> > accounted between each check of threads_handled, as those will be counted
> > as a single one in the unhandled IRQ detection.
> > 
> > In order to fix this, subtract from irqs_unhandled the number of IRQs
> > handled since the last check (threads_handled_last - threads_handled).
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static inline int get_handled_diff(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int handled;
> > +	int diff;
> > +
> > +	handled = (unsigned int)atomic_read(&desc->threads_handled);
> > +	handled |= SPURIOUS_DEFERRED;
> > +
> > +	diff = handled - desc->threads_handled_last;
> > +	diff >>= SPURIOUS_DEFERRED_SHIFT;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Note: We keep the SPURIOUS_DEFERRED bit set. We are handling the
> > +	 * previous invocation right now. Keep it for the current one, so the
> > +	 * next hardware interrupt will account for it.
> > +	 */
> 

Hello Andy, thanks for reviewing!

> > +	if (diff != 0)
> 
> 	if (diff)

Sure

> 
> > +		desc->threads_handled_last = handled;
> > +
> > +	return diff;
> > +}
> 
> ...
> 
> > +			diff = get_handled_diff(desc);
> > +			if (diff > 0) {
> 
> diff may not be negative as you always right shift by 1 (or more) bit.

Agree

> Hence
> 
> 			if (diff)
> 
> will suffice (also be aligned with the similar check inside the helper) and
> making the helper to return unsigned value will be clearer. Am I correct?

Sure, you are correct.

I just think having it be (diff > 0) makes it clear that we only do the 
subtraction if diff is bigger than zero, while (diff) could mean diff being 
valid, and would require the reader to go back in code to see that diff is 
an int. 

Does it make sense?

Other than that, I agree the negative half of diff is never going to get 
used, and it's better to go with unsigned int in both cases.

That will be changed on the next version.

Thanks!
Leo

> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
>