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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZGUI4J27h69ed005@smile.fi.intel.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 20:03:28 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> To: Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer@....net> Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>, Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>, Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>, Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Andreas Klinger <ak@...klinger.de>, Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] pinctrl: wpcm450: elax return value check for IRQ get On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 06:32:09PM +0200, Jonathan Neuschäfer wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 10:13:14AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > The special handling in this driver was added when fixing a problem > > where returning zero from fwnode_irq_get[_byname]() was treated as > > succes yielding zero being used as a valid IRQ by the driver. > > f4a31facfa80 ("pinctrl: wpcm450: Correct the fwnode_irq_get() return value check") > > The commit message does not mention if choosing not to abort the probe > > on device-tree mapping failure (as is done on other errors) was chosen > > because: a) Abort would have broken some existing setup. b) Because skipping > > an IRQ on failure is "the right thing to do", or c) because it sounded like > > a way to minimize risk of breaking something. > > > > If the reason is a) - then I'd appreciate receiving some more > > information and a suggestion how to proceed (if possible). If the reason > > is b), then it might be best to just skip the IRQ instead of aborting > > the probe for all errors on IRQ getting. Finally, in case of c), well, > > by acking this change you will now accept the risk :) >From my side it was c). > > The first patch of the series changes the fwnode_irq_get() so this depends > > on the first patch of the series and should not be applied alone. > > Thanks for investigating this! > > It's not a), because there are no existing setups that rely on broken > IRQs connected to this pinctrl/GPIO controller. > > I suspect b) or c), but I'll let Andy give a more definite answer. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists