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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 15 Dec 2018 20:18:23 +0100
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     nic_swsd@...ltek.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: r8169: improve spurious interrupt detection

On 15.12.2018 20:15, David Miller wrote:
> 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?
> 
Right, I missed to state net vs. net-next.
>