linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mfd: intel-lpss: Switch over to MSI interrupts

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: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:22:16 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mfd: intel-lpss: Switch over to MSI interrupts

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 04:01:07PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:21:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 04:19:15PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 06:59:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

..

> > > > -	ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, 1, PCI_IRQ_LEGACY);
> > > > +	ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, 1, PCI_IRQ_ALL_TYPES);
> > > >  	if (ret < 0)
> > > >  		return ret;
> > > 
> > > I guess at least some of these devices do support INTx, since we
> > > always used INTx previously, right?
> > > 
> > > There are a bunch of bug reports complaining about a lack of _PRT
> > > entries for them, e.g., these from
> > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212261#c24:
> > 
> > But this is not related to my patch, and the mentioned bug report seems about
> > all AMD and Intel platforms.
> > 
> > Can you, please, elaborate what the relation to my patch?
> 
> Right, sorry I didn't make that clear; I didn't mean that it was
> related to your patch.  I was just looking at this old bug report
> about not being able to figure out INTx routing.
> 
> Your patch had to do with interrupts, so I just wondered whether you
> had insight into whether these devices actually used INTx.  My guess
> is that at least some of them *do* use INTx, because prior to your
> patch, the driver *only* tried to use INTx.
> 
> If it happend that they never use INTx, but advertise INTA via
> Interrupt Pin, I think that would be a device defect that we might
> consider a quirk for.
> 
> If they *do* use INTx, and the _PRT doesn't tell us how it's routed, I
> think that would be a firmware defect, and ... I dunno what we would
> do.  I guess just avoid using INTx because we don't know where the
> interupt goes.

Okay, so the revert after all is not required, do you agree?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko