From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Aman Sharma <amanharitsh123@gmail.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] driver core: platform: Clarify that IRQ 0 is invalid
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 21:07:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200504190721.GA2810934@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200504180822.GA282766@bjorn-Precision-5520>
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 01:08:22PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 08:15:37AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 05:40:41PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > >
> > > These interfaces return a negative error number or an IRQ:
> > >
> > > platform_get_irq()
> > > platform_get_irq_optional()
> > > platform_get_irq_byname()
> > > platform_get_irq_byname_optional()
> > >
> > > The function comments suggest checking for error like this:
> > >
> > > irq = platform_get_irq(...);
> > > if (irq < 0)
> > > return irq;
> > >
> > > which is what most callers (~900 of 1400) do, so it's implicit that IRQ 0
> > > is invalid. But some callers check for "irq <= 0", and it's not obvious
> > > from the source that we never return an IRQ 0.
> > >
> > > Make this more explicit by updating the comments to say that an IRQ number
> > > is always non-zero and adding a WARN() if we ever do return zero. If we do
> > > return IRQ 0, it likely indicates a bug in the arch-specific parts of
> > > platform_get_irq().
> >
> > I worry about adding WARN() as there are systems that do panic_on_warn()
> > and syzbot trips over this as well. I don't think that for this issue
> > it would be a problem, but what really is this warning about that
> > someone could do anything with?
> >
> > Other than that minor thing, this looks good to me, thanks for finally
> > clearing this up.
>
> What I'm concerned about is an arch that returns 0. Most drivers
> don't check for 0 so they'll just try to use it, and things will fail
> in some obscure way. My assumption is that if there really is no IRQ,
> we should return -ENOENT or similar instead of 0.
>
> I could be convinced that it's not worth warning about at all, or we
> could do something like the following:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
> index 084cf1d23d3f..4afa5875e14d 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
> @@ -220,7 +220,11 @@ int platform_get_irq_optional(struct platform_device *dev, unsigned int num)
> ret = -ENXIO;
> #endif
> out:
> - WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n");
> + /* Returning zero here is likely a bug in the arch IRQ code */
> + if (ret == 0) {
> + pr_warn("0 is an invalid IRQ number\n");
> + dump_stack();
> + }
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_get_irq_optional);
> @@ -312,7 +316,11 @@ static int __platform_get_irq_byname(struct platform_device *dev,
>
> r = platform_get_resource_byname(dev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, name);
> if (r) {
> - WARN(r->start == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n");
> + /* Returning zero here is likely a bug in the arch IRQ code */
> + if (r->start == 0) {
> + pr_warn("0 is an invalid IRQ number\n");
> + dump_stack();
> + }
> return r->start;
> }
>
I like that, but you said this is something that the platform people
should only see when bringing up a new system, so maybe the WARN() is
fine. It's not user-triggerable, so your original is ok.
sorry for the noise,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-04 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-01 22:40 [PATCH v2 0/2] PCI: Check for platform_get_irq() failure consistently Bjorn Helgaas
2020-05-01 22:40 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] driver core: platform: Clarify that IRQ 0 is invalid Bjorn Helgaas
2020-05-02 6:15 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-05-04 18:08 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-05-04 19:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2020-05-04 22:26 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-05-05 13:35 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-05-01 22:40 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI: Check for platform_get_irq() failure consistently Bjorn Helgaas
2020-05-12 12:35 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] " Linus Walleij
2020-05-13 17:44 ` Bjorn Helgaas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200504190721.GA2810934@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=amanharitsh123@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).