On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 14:00 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:40:56 +1000 Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.=
au> wrote:
quoted text
> >=20
> > This boot ordering stuff is pretty hairy, so I might have missed
> > something, but this is how the code is ordered AFAICT:
> > =EF=BB=BF
> > start_kernel()
> > 	init_IRQ()
> > 	...
> > 	local_irq_enable()
> > 	...
> > 	rest_init()
> > 		kernel_thread()
> > 			kernel_init()
> > 				smp_prepare_cpus()
> > 					smp_xics_probe()	(via smp_ops->probe())
> >=20
> >=20
> > What's stopping us from taking an irq between local_irq_enable() and
> > smp_xics_probe() ?  Is it just that no one's request_irq()'ed them yet?
>=20
>   It's hairy, I agree, but as you've mentioned no one has done a request_=
irq()
quoted text
> at that point. The first one to do it is smp_xics_probe() for the IPI.

Hmm, I don't think that's strong enough. I can trivially cause irqs to
fire during a kexec reboot just by mashing the keyboard.

And during a kdump boot all sorts of stuff could be firing. Even during
a clean boot, from firmware, I don't think we can guarantee that
nothing's going to fire.

.. after a bit of testing ..

It seems it actually works (sort of).=20

xics_remap_irq() calls irq_radix_revmap_lookup(), which calls:

ptr =3D radix_tree_lookup(&host->revmap_data.tree, hwirq);

And because =EF=BB=BFhost->revmap_data.tree was zalloc'ed we trip on the fi=
rst
check here:



cheers

--=20
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab

wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person