Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:11:55 +0100 (BST)
From:   "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] x86/irq for v5.18-rc1
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wg_Kyh4zVmBSc4H79jH+yv9wN7dMsf-5x=EDrORbL3fuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2203301406450.22465@angie.orcam.me.uk>
References: <164786042536.122591.4459156564791679956.tglx@xen13> <164786043041.122591.4693682080153649212.tglx@xen13> <CAHk-=wg_Kyh4zVmBSc4H79jH+yv9wN7dMsf-5x=EDrORbL3fuQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> >  - Handle the IRT routing table format in AMI BIOSes correctly
> 
> *Very* minor nit here in the hope of future cleanups: the other x86
> irq routing table structions (Christ, that's a sentence that shouldn't
> exist in a sane world) use "__attribute__((packed))" and this one uses
> "__packed".

 I have reviewed and reverified the code for resubmission now and frankly 
I don't know where this "__packed" artefact has come from.  I certainly 
have "__attribute__((packed))" in all my copies of the change including 
one I have submitted (though `checkpatch.pl' does want it indeed to be 
`__packed' instead).

 Also accessing memory beyond __va(0x100000) does not appear to crash on 
my 32-bit x86 machine, so it must be something specific to x86-64.  Not an 
excuse for a range overrun of course, but still odd (and as I previously 
mentioned I find it odd too that this code is ever run for x86-64 in the 
first place).

 Finally, following your suggestion I have added verification for a range 
overrun for the whole table for both the existing $PIR format and the new 
$IRT format.  It isn't a big deal and we shouldn't trust external sources 
of data.

  Maciej