linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] suspend/hibernation: Fix racing timers

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:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:59:55 -0700
From:	Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] suspend/hibernation: Fix racing timers

Hi John,

On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 08:55PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 07/21/2014 10:35 AM, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> > On platforms that do not power off during suspend, successfully entering
> > suspend races with timers.
> >
> > The race happening in a couple of location is:
> >
> >   1. disable IRQs 	(e.g. arch_suspend_disable_irqs())
> >      ...
> >   2. syscore_suspend()
> >         -> tick_suspend() 	(timers are turned off here)
> >      ...
> >   3. wfi		(wait for wake-IRQ here)
> >
> > Between steps 1 and 2 the timers can still generate interrupts that are
> > not handled and stay pending until step 3. That pending IRQ causes an
> > immediate - spurious - wake.
> >
> > The solution is to remove the timekeeping suspend/resume functions from
> > the syscore functions and explictly call them at the appropriate time in
> > the suspend/hibernation patchs. I.e. timers are suspend _before_ IRQs
> > get disabled. And accordingly in the resume path.
> 
> So.. I sort of follow this, though from the description disabling
> timekeeping to turn off timers seems a little indirect (I do see that
> suspending timekeeping calls clockevents_suspend() which is the key
> part). Maybe this could be clarified in a future version of the patch
> description?
> 
> I worry that moving timekeeping_suspend earlier in the suspend process
> might cause problems where things access time in the suspend path. I
> recall these orderings have been problematic in the past, and slightly
> tweaking them can often destabilize things badly.

You're right. Just when I received this I started seeing some warning
from the kernel due to ktime_get() called with timekeeping being
suspended.
Though, stability-wise it seems to work.

> 
> I wonder if it would be better just to move the clockevent_suspend()
> call to the earlier site, that way timers are halted but timekeeping
> continues until its normal suspend point.

I'll look into this and send out a patch once I have something working.

	Thanks,
	Sören
--
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/