linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] amba: Don't unprepare the clocks if device driver wants IRQ safe runtime PM

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:	Sat, 1 Nov 2014 01:01:13 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/5] amba: Don't unprepare the clocks if device driver
 wants IRQ safe runtime PM

On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 12:55:14AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 01:45:47AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, October 20, 2014 11:04:46 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > @@ -198,8 +217,10 @@ static int amba_probe(struct device *dev)
> > >  		pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> > >  
> > >  		ret = pcdrv->probe(pcdev, id);
> > > -		if (ret == 0)
> > > +		if (ret == 0) {
> > > +			pcdev->irq_safe = pm_runtime_is_irq_safe(dev);
> > 
> > This looks racy.
> > 
> > Is it guaranteed that runtime PM callbacks won't be run for the device
> > after pcdrv->probe() has returned and before setting pcdev->irq_safe?
> > If not, inconsistent behavior may ensue.
> 
> You are absolutely correct.  So that knocks that idea on its head.

Actually, I think we shouldn't give up hope here.  Currently, we do this:

                pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
                pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
                pm_runtime_enable(dev);

                ret = pcdrv->probe(pcdev, id);

What we could do is:

		pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
                pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev);
                pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
                pm_runtime_enable(dev);

                ret = pcdrv->probe(pcdev, id);
		if (ret == 0) {
			pcdev->irq_safe = pm_runtime_is_irq_safe(dev);
			pm_runtime_put(dev);
			break;
		}

                pm_runtime_disable(dev);
                pm_runtime_set_suspended(dev);
                pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);
                pm_runtime_put_noidle(dev);

which would ensure that we hold a usecount until after the probe function
has returned.  Would that work?

I'll give you that it's pretty horrid.

Would another possible solution be to remember the irq-safeness in the
suspend handler, and use that in the resume handler?  Resume should
/always/ undo what the suspend handler previously did wrt clk API stuff.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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/