[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 13/15] x86/IRQ: tighten vector checks

>>> On 20.05.19 at 16:04, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 04:52:32AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Use valid_irq_vector() rather than "> 0".
>> Also replace an open-coded use of IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED.
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>


> The question I have below is not directly related to the usage of
> valid_irq_vector, but rather with the existing code.
>> @@ -452,15 +452,18 @@ static vmask_t *irq_get_used_vector_mask
>>              int vector;
>>              vector = irq_to_vector(irq);
>> -            if ( vector > 0 )
>> +            if ( valid_irq_vector(vector) )
>>              {
>> -                printk(XENLOG_INFO "IRQ %d already assigned vector %d\n",
>> +                printk(XENLOG_INFO "IRQ%d already assigned vector %02x\n",
>>                         irq, vector);
>>                  ASSERT(!test_bit(vector, ret));
>>                  set_bit(vector, ret);
>>              }
>> +            else if ( vector != IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED )
>> +                printk(XENLOG_WARNING "IRQ%d mapped to bogus vector %02x\n",
>> +                       irq, vector);
> Maybe add an assert_unreachable here? It seems really bogus to call
> irq_get_used_vector_mask with an unassigned vector.

How that? This would e.g. get called the very first time a vector
is to be assigned. But I'm afraid I'm a little confused anyway by
the wording you use - after all this is the code path dealing with
an IRQ _not_ being marked as having no vector assigned, but
also not having a valid vector.

> But I'm not sure I fully understand this piece of code, neither why a
> vector without a IRQ assigned can have a vector assigned. Is this
> covering up for the lack of cleanup elsewhere?

I don't think so, no. However, users of irq_to_vector() need to
be careful: The function can legitimately return 0 (besides
IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED) as an error indication. I've tried to
do away with this, but quickly realized I'd better not do so. I've
not seen the printk() trigger, but I'd rather see the printk() log
a message telling us that we also need to exclude vector 0 than
a wrong assertion to fire.


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.