linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][v7] x86, suspend: Save/restore extra MSR registers for suspend

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 May 2016 13:02:30 +0800
From:	Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
	"Kaszewski, Marcin" <marcin.kaszewski@...el.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][v7] x86, suspend: Save/restore extra MSR registers for suspend

Hi Len,

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> wrote:
> +mjg59, who may be seeing this issue on a skylake laptop
>
> Chen-yu,
>
> Great debugging, but I think there is a more general fix possible than
> this DMI quirk.
>
> I agree that in this example, a grantley server, it seems the BIOS is
> erroneously
> returning a bogus value of MSR_IA32_THERM_CONTROL on resume from S3.
>
> But another scenario is also possible.  Consider a laptop that is resuming HOT
> and the BIOS correctly enables throttling.  If this code were invoked, it would
> restore the COLD setting.
>
> Instead, it seems to me that the ACPI processor driver should upon .resume
> check if throttling should be enabled or not, and proceed accordingly.
> That would always do the "right thing", and would not need a DMI list.
> Does that make sense?
I agree, to let the related drivers customize their restoring process
would be more robust,
and we can not only take care of boot CPU but also nonboot CPUs in this way.
I think we can add something like acpi_processor_reevaluate_tstate in the resume
hook,I'll make a double check.

thanks,
Yu