IRQ 8 request_irq, Operation not permitted - linux-kernel

Question

I'm new to kernel modules development and in my study process, I moved to the interrupts. My task is to write an interrupt handler module for IRQ 8, which will simply count the number of interrupts that occurred on this line and store the value in the kobject. The task sounds relatively easy at a first glance, but I've encountered strange behaviour. I wrote a handler function that simply increments the counter and returns interrupt as handled
static int ir=0;
static irq_handler_t my_handler(int irq_no, void *dev_id, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
ir++;
return (irq_handler_t) IRQ_HANDLED;
}
To hook the interrupt handler I call the request_irq() function inside my __init with the first argument being 8, so the IRQ 8 (which is reserved by rtc) line interrupts are handled
#define RTC_IRQ 8
[...]
int err;
err = request_irq(RTC_IRQ, (irq_handler_t) my_handler,IRQF_SHARED,"rtc0",NULL);
if (err != 0)
return -1;
With the implementation shown above, loading a kernel module gives me err equal to -22, which is EINVAL. After googling I discovered that for the IRQF_SHARED flag last parameter can't be assigned as NULL. I tried to find a method to obtain rtc->dev_id within the module, but in some of the examples they just typecasted the handler into (void *) so I tried passing (void *) my_handler. This gives me a flag mismatch warning on insmod
genirq: Flags mismatch irq 8. 00000080 (rtc0) vs. 00000000 (rtc0)
And err value set to -16, what I read from some sources means "busy". While trying to find a way to obtain a device-id I found out that interrupt is sent by the rtc0 device which is "inherited" from the rtc-cmos parent.
There are different controversial clues I found in different sources across the internet on this matter. Some state that the kernel disables rtc after the synchronization of the software clock, but this can't be the case, since the use of sudo bash -c ' echo +20 > /sys/class/rtc/rtc0/wakealarm ' and read of /proc/interrupts on the IRQ 8 line shows that interrupts are working as intended
Other sources state that all the request_irqs directed to the line must have the IRQF_SHARED flag installed to be able to share the interrupt line. Reading the source file for rtc-cmos gave me nothing since they are setting up interrupts via reading-writing CMOS directly
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out the solution to the problem, but it seems like the RTC interrupts aren't commonly used in a kernel modules development, so finding relevant and recent information on the case is difficult, most of the discussions and examples are related to the implementation when SA_SHIRQ-like flags were used and /drivers/examples folder was present in the kernel source files which is something around kernel version 2.6. And both interrupts and rtc kernel implementation were changed since those times
Any hints/suggestions that may help resolve this issue will be greatly appreciated. This is my first StackOverflow question, so if anything in its format is wrong or disturbing you are welcome to point it out in the comments as well
Thanks in advance for any help

Answer 1

I solved the problem quite a while ago now, but here's some explanation for newbies like me. #stark provided a good hint for the problem.
The main thing to understand is that irresponsible actions in the kernel space quickly lead to a "disaster" of sorts. Seemingly, this is the main reason Linux developers are closing more and more regions from the users/developers.
Read here for the solution
So, in modern kernel versions, you don't randomly tie the handler to a line and mark interrupts as resolved. But you still can "listen" to them using the IRQF_SHARED flag and at the end of your handler you let the interrupt untouched by returning IRQ_NONE, so you are not breaking the correct operation of the rest of the kernel if the interrupt is crucial for something else.
End of the solution, some extra advice on kernel development next
At the very start, it is important to understand that this is not a Userspace where your actions at most will lead to a memory leakage or corruption of some files. Here your actions will easily damage your kernel. If a similar scenario happened to Windows, you'll have no other choice than completely reinstalling the entire OS, but in GNU/Linux this is not really the case. You can swap to a different kernel without the need to go through a tedious process of recovering everything as was before, so if you are a hardcore enthusiast that's too lazy to use VMs, learning to swap kernels, will come in handy real soon:)