[PATCH] x86: do_IRQ(): check irq number (a052b68b) · Commits · 戴 / test

We recently changed x86 to handle more than 256 IRQs. Add a check in do_IRQ() just to make sure that nothing went wrong with that implementation. [chrisw@sous-sol.org: do x86_64 too] Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org> Cc: "Protasevich, Natalie" <Natalie.Protasevich@UNISYS.com> Cc: <Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk> Signed-off-by:

Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by:

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

arch/i386/kernel/irq.c

+6 −0

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -60,6 +60,12 @@ fastcall unsigned int do_IRQ(struct pt_regs *regs)
		u32 *isp;
		#endif

		if (unlikely((unsigned)irq >= NR_IRQS)) {
		printk(KERN_EMERG "%s: cannot handle IRQ %d\n",
		__FUNCTION__, irq);
		BUG();
		}

		irq_enter();
		#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW
		/* Debugging check for stack overflow: is there less than 1KB free? */

arch/x86_64/kernel/irq.c

+6 −0

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -118,6 +118,12 @@ asmlinkage unsigned int do_IRQ(struct pt_regs *regs)
		/* high bit used in ret_from_ code */
		unsigned irq = ~regs->orig_rax;

		if (unlikely(irq >= NR_IRQS)) {
		printk(KERN_EMERG "%s: cannot handle IRQ %d\n",
		__FUNCTION__, irq);
		BUG();
		}

		exit_idle();
		irq_enter();
		#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW

Admin message