netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: bcmgenet: Return not supported if we don't have a WoL IRQ

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:   Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:04:50 +0100
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>,
        Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: bcmgenet: Return not supported if we don't have a
 WoL IRQ

Hello Jeremy,

On 3/3/22 21:00, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2/23/22 16:48, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:54:26 -0800 Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> I have no problems working with you to improve the driver, the problem
>>>> I have is this is currently a regression in 5.17 so I would like to
>>>> see something land, whether it's reverting the other patch, landing
>>>> thing one or another straight forward fix and then maybe revisit as
>>>> whole in 5.18.
>>>
>>> Understood and I won't require you or me to complete this investigating
>>> before fixing the regression, this is just so we understand where it
>>> stemmed from and possibly fix the IRQ layer if need be. Given what I
>>> just wrote, do you think you can sprinkle debug prints throughout the
>>> kernel to figure out whether enable_irq_wake() somehow messes up the
>>> interrupt descriptor of interrupt and test that theory? We can do that
>>> offline if you want.
>>
>> Let me mark v2 as Deferred for now, then. I'm not really sure if that's
>> what's intended but we have 3 weeks or so until 5.17 is cut so we can
>> afford a few days of investigating.
>>
>> I'm likely missing the point but sounds like the IRQ subsystem treats
>> IRQ numbers as unsigned so if we pass a negative value "fun" is sort
>> of expected. Isn't the problem that device somehow comes with wakeup
>> capable being set already? Isn't it better to make sure device is not
>> wake capable if there's no WoL irq instead of adding second check?
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/genet/bcmgenet.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/genet/bcmgenet.c
>> index cfe09117fe6c..7dea44803beb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/genet/bcmgenet.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/genet/bcmgenet.c
>> @@ -4020,12 +4020,12 @@ static int bcmgenet_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   
>>   	/* Request the WOL interrupt and advertise suspend if available */
>>   	priv->wol_irq_disabled = true;
>> -	if (priv->wol_irq > 0) {
>> +	if (priv->wol_irq > 0)
>>   		err = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, priv->wol_irq,
>>   				       bcmgenet_wol_isr, 0, dev->name, priv);
>> -		if (!err)
>> -			device_set_wakeup_capable(&pdev->dev, 1);
>> -	}
>> +	else
>> +		err = -ENOENT;
>> +	device_set_wakeup_capable(&pdev->dev, !err);
>>   
>>   	/* Set the needed headroom to account for any possible
>>   	 * features enabling/disabling at runtime
>>
> 
> 
> I duplicated the problem on rpi4/ACPI by moving to gcc12, so I have a/b 
> config that is close as I can achieve using gcc11 vs 12 and the one 
> built with gcc12 fails pretty consistently while the gcc11 works.
> 

Did Peter's patch instead of this one help ?

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat