Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] gpiolib: Handle immutable irq_chip structures

Andy Shevchenko
2022-05-12T17:11:58Z

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 03:18:36PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> This is a followup from [2].
>
> I recently realised that the gpiolib play ugly tricks on the
> unsuspecting irq_chip structures by patching the callbacks.
>
> Not only this breaks when an irq_chip structure is made const (which
> really should be the default case), but it also forces this structure
> to be copied at nauseam for each instance of the GPIO block, which is
> a waste of memory.

Is this brings us to the issue with IRQ chip name?

The use case in my mind is the following:
1) we have two or more GPIO chips that supports IRQ;
2) the user registers two IRQs of the same (by number) pin on different chips;
3) cat /proc/interrupt will show 'my_gpio_chip XX', where XX is the number.

So, do I understand correct current state of affairs?

If so, we have to fix this to have any kind of ID added to the chip name that
we can map /proc/interrupts output correctly.

> My current approach is to add a new irq_chip flag (IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE)
> which does what it says on the tin: don't you dare writing to them.
> Gpiolib is further updated not to install its own callbacks, and it
> becomes the responsibility of the driver to call into the gpiolib when
> required. This is similar to what we do for other subsystems such as
> PCI-MSI.
>
> 5 drivers are updated to this new model: M1, QC, Tegra, pl061 and AMD
> (as I actively use them) keeping a single irq_chip structure, marking
> it const, and exposing the new flag.
>
> Nothing breaks, the volume of change is small, the memory usage goes
> down and we have fewer callbacks that can be used as attack vectors.
> What's not to love?
>
> Since there wasn't any objection in the previous round of review, I'm
> going to take this series into -next to see if anything breaks at
> scale.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko