Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 3/9] spmi: pmic-arb: check apid against limits before calling irq handler | From | Fenglin Wu <> | Date | Wed, 13 Oct 2021 13:31:22 +0800 |
| |
On 10/13/2021 2:02 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-09-16 23:32:58) >> From: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org> >> >> Check that the apid for an SPMI interrupt falls between the >> min_apid and max_apid that can be handled by the APPS processor >> before invoking the per-apid interrupt handler: >> periph_interrupt(). >> >> This avoids an access violation in rare cases where the status >> bit is set for an interrupt that is not owned by the APPS >> processor. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com> >> --- > Fixes? BTW, a lot of these patches are irqchip specific. It would be > good to get review from irqchip maintainers. Maybe we should split the > irqchip driver off via the auxiliary bus so that irqchip maintainers can > review. Please Cc them on irqchip related patches. > > IRQCHIP DRIVERS > M: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > M: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> Sure, copied Thomas and Marc for code review. This is a fix to avoid the register access violation in a case that an interrupt is fired in a PMIC module which is not owned by APPS processor. >> drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c >> index 4d7ad004..c4adc06 100644 >> --- a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c >> +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c >> @@ -535,6 +535,12 @@ static void pmic_arb_chained_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) >> id = ffs(status) - 1; >> status &= ~BIT(id); >> apid = id + i * 32; >> + if (apid < pmic_arb->min_apid >> + || apid > pmic_arb->max_apid) { > The || goes on the line above. What about making a local variable for > first and last and then shifting by 5 in the loop? > > int first = pmic_arb->min_apid; > int last = pmic_arb->max_apid; > > for (i = first >> 5; i <= last >> 5; i++) > > if (apid < first || apid > last) ACK, will update it following this. >> + WARN_ONCE(true, "spurious spmi irq received for apid=%d\n", >> + apid); > Is there any way to recover from this? Or once the mapping is wrong > we're going to get interrupts that we don't know what to do with > forever? This is a rare case that the unexpected interrupt is fired in a module not owned by APPS process, so the interrupt itself is not expected hence no need to recover from this but just bail out to avoid following register access violation. >> + continue; >> + } >> enable = readl_relaxed( >> ver_ops->acc_enable(pmic_arb, apid)); >> if (enable & SPMI_PIC_ACC_ENABLE_BIT)
| |