Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 3/9] spmi: pmic-arb: check apid against limits before calling irq handler

From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
To: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: collinsd@codeaurora.org, subbaram@codeaurora.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de, maz@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 3/9] spmi: pmic-arb: check apid against limits before calling irq handler
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 12:25:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <163415312707.936959.13741150880359468709@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7efffba4-5e8b-1b71-8bee-3dffe65cfdf5@quicinc.com>

Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-12 22:31:22)
> 
> 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.

Got it.

> >>   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.

And then the irq stops coming? It feels like a misconfiguration in the
firmware that we're trying to hide, hence the WARN_ONCE(). Can we
somehow silence irqs that aren't owned by the APPS when this driver
probes so that they can't even happen after probe?