> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 4:24 AM
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 08:39:16 +0000
> "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 5:15 AM
> > >
> > > Currently for devices requiring masking at the irqchip for INTx, ie.
> > > devices without DisINTx support, the IRQ is enabled in request_irq()
> > > and subsequently disabled as necessary to align with the masked status
> > > flag. This presents a window where the interrupt could fire between
> > > these events, resulting in the IRQ incrementing the disable depth twice.
> > > This would be unrecoverable for a user since the masked flag prevents
> > > nested enables through vfio.
> > >
> > > Instead, invert the logic using IRQF_NO_AUTOEN such that exclusive INTx
> > > is never auto-enabled, then unmask as required.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 89e1f7d4c66d ("vfio: Add PCI device driver")
> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > CC stable?
>
> I've always found that having a Fixes: tag is sufficient to get picked
> up for stable, so I typically don't do both. If it helps out someone's
> process I'd be happy to though. Thanks,
>
According to "Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst":
Note: Attaching a Fixes: tag does not subvert the stable kernel rules
process nor the requirement to Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on all stable
patch candidates. For more information, please read
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
Probably it's fine as long as the stable kernel maintainers don't complain. 😊
