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, 8 Apr 2013 10:51:45 +0800 From: chenhc@...ote.com To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> Cc: "Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Fuxin Zhang" <zhangfx@...ote.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM/reboot: call syscore_shutdown() after disable_nonboot_cpus() > On Sunday, April 07, 2013 08:29:32 AM Greg KH wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 10:46:00AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Sunday, April 07, 2013 10:14:14 AM Huacai Chen wrote: >> > > As commit 40dc166c (PM / Core: Introduce struct syscore_ops for core >> > > subsystems PM) say, syscore_ops operations should be carried with >> one >> > > CPU on-line and interrupts disabled. However, after commit f96972f2d >> > > (kernel/sys.c: call disable_nonboot_cpus() in kernel_restart()), >> > > syscore_shutdown() is called before disable_nonboot_cpus(), so break >> > > the rules. We have a MIPS machine with a 8259A PIC, and there is an >> > > external timer (HPET) linked at 8259A. Since 8259A has been shutdown >> > > too early (by syscore_shutdown()), disable_nonboot_cpus() runs >> without >> > > timer interrupt, so it hangs and reboot fails. This patch call >> > > syscore_shutdown() a little later (after disable_nonboot_cpus()) to >> > > avoid reboot failure, this is the same way as poweroff does. >> > > >> > > BTW, add disable_nonboot_cpus() in kernel_halt() for consistency. >> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhc@...ote.com> >> > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> >> > >> > While I agree with the changes, I'm not sure if I'm the right >> maintainer, >> > as this isn't really PM code. >> > >> > Andrew, should I take this? >> >> Andrew is on vacation for a few weeks, so you might need to take this >> through your tree. > > OK > > But, it looks like we should actually disable interrupts on the remaining > CPU after we've called disable_nonboot_cpus() so that the > syscore_shutdown() > assumptions are satisfied which the patch doesn't do. > > Chen (I apologize if that's not the right part of your full name to use > here), > do you think that's not necessary and if so, then for what reason? Reboot and poweroff are both OK after I move syscore_shutdown(), I also don't know whether we should disable interrupts. Since you are the author of commit 40dc166c (PM / Core: Introduce struct syscore_ops for core subsystems PM), please tell me why syscore_shutdown() need interrupt disabled? (I just know that syscore_shutdown() will cause disable_nonboot_cpus() hang) BTW, Chen is my last name and you needn't worry about this. > > Rafael > > > -- > I speak only for myself. > Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. > -- 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