On 23/05/2017 20:03, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 23/05/17 18:54, Mason wrote:
>> On 23/05/2017 19:03, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:56:08PM +0200, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2017 16:28, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +static int tango_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data,
>>>>> + const struct cpumask *mask, bool force)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static struct irq_chip tango_chip = {
>>>>> + .irq_ack = tango_ack,
>>>>> + .irq_mask = tango_mask,
>>>>> + .irq_unmask = tango_unmask,
>>>>> + .irq_set_affinity = tango_set_affinity,
>>>>> + .irq_compose_msi_msg = tango_compose_msi_msg,
>>>>> +};
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm... I'm wondering why .irq_set_affinity is required.
>>>>
>>>> static int setup_affinity(struct irq_desc *desc, struct cpumask *mask)
>>>> first calls __irq_can_set_affinity() to check whether
>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_set_affinity) exists.
>>>>
>>>> then calls irq_do_set_affinity(&desc->irq_data, mask, false);
>>>> which calls chip->irq_set_affinity(data, mask, force);
>>>> = msi_domain_set_affinity()
>>>> which calls parent->chip->irq_set_affinity() unconditionally.
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to test that the callback is implemented
>>>> before calling it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ 0.723895] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you're asking.
>>>
>>> Is this a bug report for the v4 tango driver?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> Or are you asking whether msi_domain_set_affinity() should be changed
>>> to check whether parent->chip->irq_set_affinity is implemented?
>>
>> Yes. The way things are implemented now, drivers are forced
>> to define an irq_set_affinity callback, even if it just returns
>> an error, otherwise, the kernel crashes, because of the
>> unconditional function pointer deref.
>>
>>> msi_domain_set_affinity() has called parent->chip->irq_set_affinity()
>>> without checking since it was added in 2014 by f3cf8bb0d6c3 ("genirq: Add
>>> generic msi irq domain support"), so if there's a problem here, it's most
>>> likely in the tango code.
>>
>> The issue is having to define an "empty" function.
>> (Unnecessary code bloat and maintenance.)
>
> AFAICS, only one driver (other than this one) implements a "do nothing"
> set_affinity callback - everyone else who doesn't do anything hardware
> specific just passes it along via irq_chip_set_affinity_parent().
I counted 4. Where did I mess up?
advk_msi_set_affinity
altera_msi_set_affinity
nwl_msi_set_affinity
vmd_irq_set_affinity
tango_set_affinity
Regards.
