linux-kernel - "APIC error on CPU1: 00(40)" during resume (was: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:06:43 +0100
From:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, lenb@...nel.org
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	tiwai@...e.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: "APIC error on CPU1: 00(40)" during resume (was: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500)

Anybody interested in persuing this issue?

On Thursday 04 December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ingo, Len, can you check the end of the email about the apparent
> very-early interrupt issue? Can we get into acpi_ec_gpe_handler()
> without interrupts being enabled some way?
>
> HOWEVER. Having now looked through your fuller dmesg output even for
> the _successful_ case, I actually find a few things that are a bit
> worrying.
[...]
> The third thing that worries me is the _very_ early occurrence of
>
> 	ACPI: Waking up from system sleep state S3
> 	APIC error on CPU1: 00(40)
> 	ACPI: EC: non-query interrupt received, switching to interrupt mode
>
> Now, that "APIC error" thing is worrisome. It's worrisome for multiple
> reasons:
>
>  - errors are never good (0x40 means "received illegal vector",
>    whatever caused _that_)
>
>  - more importantly, it seems to imply that interrupts are enabled on
>    CPU1, and they sure as hell shouldn't be enabled at this stage!
>
>    Do we perhaps have a SMP resume bug where we resume the other CPU's
>    with interrupts enabled?
>
>  - the "ACPI: EC: non-query interrupt received, switching to interrupt
>    mode" thing is from ACPI, and _also_ implies that interrupts are on.
>
> Why are interrupts enabled that early? I really don't like seeing
> interrupts enabled before we've even done the basic PCI resume.
>
> I'd really like to resume the other CPU's much later (last in the whole
> sequnce, long after we've set up devices), but the f'ing ACPI rules
> seem to be against that. And maybe some setup actually needs the CPU's
> alive to act as a bridge for IO (eg with HT or CSI).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/