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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230519050702.3681791-1-chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> <CAHp75Vcd8Q+-XMyfg3Y_hv_AL00PGgqg0jo7Yd7TTC4GrxPOuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vcd8Q+-XMyfg3Y_hv_AL00PGgqg0jo7Yd7TTC4GrxPOuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Fri, 26 May 2023 15:01:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdHMiqhcpd2rFwjfKvwMWtTeTxG4fK+7zbzgSq9MHmGew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpiolib: Avoid side effects in gpio_is_visible()
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, johan@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org,
        warthog618@gmail.com, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:09=E2=80=AFPM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 8:07=E2=80=AFAM Chris Packham
> <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > On a system with pca9555 GPIOs that have been exported via sysfs the
> > following warning could be triggered on kexec().
> >
> >   WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 265 at drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c:3411 gpiochip_disa=
ble_irq
> >   Call trace:
> >    gpiochip_disable_irq
> >    machine_crash_shutdown
> >    __crash_kexec
> >    panic
> >    sysrq_reset_seq_param_set
> >    __handle_sysrq
> >    write_sysrq_trigger
> >
> > The warning is triggered because there is an irq_desc for the GPIO but
> > it does not have the FLAG_USED_AS_IRQ set. This is because when the GPI=
O
> > is exported via gpiod_export(), gpio_is_visible() is used to determine
> > if the "edge" attribute should be provided but in doing so it ends up
> > calling gpiochip_to_irq() which creates the irq_desc.
> >
> > Remove the call to gpiod_to_irq() from gpio_is_visible(). The actual
> > intended creation of the irq_desc comes via edge_store() when requested
> > by the user.
>
> To me it still sounds like a hack and the real solution should be done
> differently/elsewhere.
>
> Also I'm worrying that not having this file visible or not may affect
> existing user space custom scripts we will never hear about.
>
> P.S. TBH, I don't care much about sysfs, so if this patch finds its
> way upstream, I won't be unhappy.
>

Same. Which is why - if there'll be no more objections, I will apply it.

Bart