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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:02:47 +0900 From: Kim Kyuwon <q1.kim@...sung.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> Cc: Kim Kyuwon <chammoru@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: suspend_device_irqs(): don't disable wakeup IRQs Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote: >> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote: >>> On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote: > [--snip--] >>>> You changed the really important part of Linux, which may affect most >>>> processor architectures. I think you should be careful. If some of >>>> architectures can't take care of it (they can implement >>>> disable_irq_wake correctly in H/W level, will you revert your changes? >>> No, the changes are not going to be reverted. In fact things should have been >>> done like this already much earlier. >>> >>> Now, do you have any particular example of a problem related to these changes >>> or is it only a theoretical issue? >> I'd CCing you when I'm sending a mail for this particular example of a example. >> http://markmail.org/thread/fvt7d62arofon5xx > > Well, as I said above, reverting the changes that introduced > [suspend|resume]_device_irqs() is not an option, becuase it was the only sane > way to achieve the goal they were added for. So, we need to fix the wake-up > problem on your platform with the assumption that > [suspend|resume]_device_irqs() are going to stay. > > For starters, would it be possible to teach the 'disable' hook of your > platform's interrupt controller not to mask the IRQs that have both > IRQ_WAKEUP and IRQ_SUSPENDED set? That apparently would work around the > wake-up interrupts problem. Thank you for considering this issue and spending your time. In order to make your idea work, we need to add a dummy 'set_wake' hook which returns always zero. Anyway, IMO, I think your idea is good to work around this problem. But Kevin Hilman(OMAP PM Maintainer) would make final decision. Buy the way, how can you handle the problem that a few interrupt are discarded in a small window? I can be sure they are discarded, because I have debugged defects which generate in sleep/resume state hundreds of times on ARM Processors(PXA310, S3C6410, OMAP3430). Wake-up interrupts are generated as soon as arch_suspend_enable_irqs() invoked. Regards, Kyuwon -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists