netdev - Re: r8169: improve spurious interrupt detection

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:   Sat, 15 Dec 2018 11:15:11 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     hkallweit1@...il.com
Cc:     nic_swsd@...ltek.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: r8169: improve spurious interrupt detection

From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 19:44:35 +0100

> tp->irq_mask holds the chip-specific interrupt mask. It doesn't say
> whether interrupts are enabled or not. rtl_get_events() reads via
> PCI(e) anyway, so I was under the impression that one more PCI(e) read
> doesn't really matter.
> We could introduce a flag shadowing the "interrupts are enabled" state
> and use it here. But I'm not sure whether it's worth it.
> Alternatively we could also go with the readw_relaxed() version to
> get the values, this would eliminate the memory barrier at least.

Thank for explaining, I thought ->irq_mask shadows IntrMask.

I see what you are saying about rtl8169_irq_mask_and_ack() so maybe
adding one more PCIe read won't matter.

I think I'll apply this as-is, this was supposed to be net-next and
that's why you reposted it with a corrected Subject correct?