Re: [PATCH] i2c: iproc: fix race between client unreg and isr

[Ray Jui]

Hi Wolfram,

On 7/25/2020 3:18 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> I think the following sequence needs to be implemented to make this
>> safe, i.e., after 'synchronize_irq', no further slave interrupt will be
>> fired.
>>
>> In 'bcm_iproc_i2c_unreg_slave':
>>
>> 1. Set an atomic variable 'unreg_slave' (I'm bad in names so please come
>> up with a better name than this)
>>
>> 2. Disable all slave interrupts
>>
>> 3. synchronize_irq
>>
>> 4. Set slave to NULL
>>
>> 5. Erase slave addresses
> 
> What about this in unreg_slave?
> 
> 1. disable_irq()
> 	This includes synchronize_irq() and avoids the race. Because irq
> 	will be masked at interrupt controller level, interrupts coming
> 	in at the I2C IP core level should still be pending once we
> 	reenable the irq.
> 

Can you confirm that even if we have irq pending at the i2c IP core
level, as long as we execute Step 2. below (to disable/mask all slave
interrupts), after 'enable_irq' is called, we still will not receive any
further i2c slave interrupt?

Basically I'm asking if interrupts will be "cached" at the GIC
controller level after 'disable_irq' is called. As long as that is not
the case, then I think we are good.

The goal of course is to ensure there's no further slave interrupts
after 'enable_irq' in Step 3 below.

Thanks!

> 2. disable all slave interrupts
> 
> 3. enable_irq()
> 
> 4. clean up the rest (pointer, address)
> 
> Or am I overlooking something?
>