netdev - RE: [PATCH] net: lan78xx: fix "enabled interrupts" warninig

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: <BL0PR11MB3329C59EEA6073D8073D23ED9F2E0@BL0PR11MB3329.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:20:38 +0000
From:   <RaghuramChary.Jallipalli@...rochip.com>
To:     <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>
CC:     <marc.zyngier@....com>, <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: lan78xx: fix "enabled interrupts" warninig

> > >
> > > The warning comes from calling generic_handle_irq() in usb tasklet
> context.
> > > This is not correct.
> > >
> > > Per my understanding, if there's chained irq, we could introduce
> > > extra irqdomain. E.g
> > >
> > > GIC <--> another irqchip controller <--> HW device
> > >
> > Correct, IRQ domain is generally used in chained irq controllers.
> > Yes, We need to check why irq domain is used in the current driver.
> >
> 
> It's introduced in the commit cc89c323a30e
> 
Hi Jisheng,
I had spent some time to look into the history of commit. The reason for having irq domain in driver is because of the unavailability of real hardware interrupt, here we have USB interrupt pipe which is not actual interrupt.
So changes were proposed to have pseudo phy interrupt and handlers in phy lib. But later it was suggested to implement linux interrupt controller in driver itself.
You can see the archive here https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/564511/
I want to understand if there is any functionality impact with this warning? Because I'm afraid if the current changes are removed we might hit some other issues (or older ones). We have to go through rigorous testing before going ahead.

Thanks.