linux-kernel - Re: try_to_freeze() called with IRQs disabled on ARM

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:17:03 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: try_to_freeze() called with IRQs disabled on ARM

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> Thereby entirely preventing threads from being frozen?  You're asking
> me to effectively disable suspend/resume on an architecture where it's
> heavily used.  That's not a good idea, and would be an out-right
> regression.

Eh? So, it's supposed to enter refrigerator with IRQ disabled? Then,
moving might_sleep() inside refrigerator() doesn't help either, does
it? Then we should be doing is,

if (freezing() && IRQ disabled) {
      bust on IRQ;
      try_to_freeze();
      replug IRQ;
}

But, that can't be right. The current code isn't triggering warning
from scheduler code, right? If the above is the case, it should be
triggering that. What am I missing?

-- 
tejun
--
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/