linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] gpio-cdev: Release IRQ used by gpio-cdev on gpio chip removal

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: <CAMRc=McFOe+B13Q7t1wdL3DiF21ga5+Maq59yXhZ_F7B0TKxEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 20:57:38 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>, 
	Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>, 
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] gpio-cdev: Release IRQ used by gpio-cdev on gpio
 chip removal

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:27 PM Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bartosz,
>
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 08:21:09 +0100
> Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> > I DO want to fix it, don't get me wrong. I don't want to just leave it
> > like this, especially since we've made so much progress with
> > hotpluggability recently. I just don't believe this is the right fix,
> > I will try to come up with a solution that addresses the issue
> > globally.
> >
>
> I didn't see anything but I could miss something.
> Did you move forward on this topic ?
>

No, I'm currently spending almost 100% of my GPIO time on getting the
libgpiod DBus API ready and I should send the first version by the end
of this week. After that I'll be at EOSS and then on vacation, so the
earliest I will get to working on it is early May.

If you feel like giving it another shot - go for it. I believe the
device link problem I described previously[1] must be fixed first. I
would also consider a more generic solution in the interrupt subsystem
that would make it aware that interrupt controllers may be torn down
with interrupts still requested.

As I said: I will get to it but not in the following couple weeks.

Bart

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMRc=Mf5fRWoOMsJ41vzvE=-vp3wi-Obw=j5fBk3DuQaZNQP2Q@mail.gmail.com/