linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] watchdog: at91sam9: request the irq with IRQF_NO

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:	Fri, 06 Mar 2015 01:29:03 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	"rtc-linux@...glegroups.com" <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] watchdog: at91sam9: request the irq with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND

On Thursday, March 05, 2015 04:32:27 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> > enable_irq_wake() has no effect on IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts, so if the
> > driver uses IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, it does not need to use enable_irq_wake()
> > in addition to that.
> 
> That's not generally true -- certainly not for irq_chips without the
> IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE flag.
> 
> Consider systems where the suspended state results in power to the CPU
> being cut, and we rely on an external piece of logic attached to the
> irq_chip to detect wakeup IRQs and restore power.
> 
> In those cases irq_chip::irq_set_wake() must be called to ensure that
> the wakeup logic is configured. If the wakeup logic is not configured to
> look out for an IRQ, then when the IRQ is asserted by a device the
> wakeup logic may not trigger. Thus the CPU power never gets restored, so
> the CPU cannot handle the interrupt.
> 
> This is handled in enable_irq_wake() -- either the chip has the
> IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE flag set or chip->irq_set_wake() must succeed. If
> neither is true enable_irq_wake() will return an error code to indicate
> we can't use the IRQ for wakeup.

Right.  I forgot about that part.

> The request_irq path never results in a call to chip->irq_set_wake(),
> even with the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag. So requesting an irq with
> IRQF_NO_SUSPEND does not guarantee wakeup; it only guarantees that the
> CPU can take the interrupt _around_ the suspended state, not necessarily
> while _in_ the suspended state.

Right.  "Suspended state" meaning full suspend here I suppose?

> > Drivers using IRQF_COND_SUSPEND generally should use enable_irq_wake() too
> > in case they end up in a situation without sharing a NO_SUSPEND interrupt, in
> > which case their interrupt handlers won't be called after suspend_device_irqs(),
> > so they need to rely on the core to do the wakeup.
> > 
> > > I agree that if problematic, it's an existing bug. Given Boris's
> > > comments in the other thread this may just a minor semantic issue w.r.t.
> > > IRQF_NO_SUSPEND vs IRQF_COND_SUSPEND.
> > 
> > It depends on whether or not the watchdog's interrupt handler has to be
> > called immediately after receiving an interrupt (IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is
> > better then) or it can be deferred till the resume_device_irqs() time.
> 
> We seem to be conflating some related properties:
> 
> [a] The IRQ will be left unmasked.
> [b] The IRQ will be handled immediately when taken.
> [c] The IRQ will wake the system from suspend.
> 
> Requesting an IRQ with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND guarantees [a,b], but does not
> guarantee [c].

That's correct.  IRQF_NO_SUSPEND does not guarantee that interrupts from
that IRQ will have any effect after arch_suspend_disable_irqs() in
suspend_enter().

> A successful enable_irq_wake() on an IRQ guarantees [a,c], but usually
> does not give [b] unless the IRQ was requested with IRQF_COND_SUSPEND
> and happens to be shared with an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND user.

That's correct too.

> It sounds like for this kind of watchdog device we want [a,b,c], even if
> the IRQ is not shared with an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND user.

We can't guarantee that, though.  arch_suspend_disable_irqs() disables
interrupts on the last working CPU and it won't get any.  It may be
brought out of a low-power state by a pending interrupt, but it won't act
upon that interrupt immediately anyway, only after the arch_suspend_enable_irqs()
in suspend_enter().  But then it might as well be deferred until after
resume_device_irqs().

Rafael

--
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/