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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:42:37 -0500 (EST) From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> cc: arvidjaar@...l.ru, <linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] 2.6.19-rc5 regression: can't disable OHCI wakeup via sysfs On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, David Brownell wrote: > On Monday 13 November 2006 9:15 am, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, David Brownell wrote: > > > > > It's a *driver model* API, which is also accessible from sysfs ... to support > > > per-device policies, for example the (a) workaround. The mechanism exists > > > even on kernels that don't include sysfs ... although on such systems, there > > > is no way for users to do things like say "ignore the fact that this mouse > > > claims to issue wakeup events, its descriptors lie". > > > > Yes, it is separate from sysfs -- but it is _tied_ to the sysfs API. > > I can't agree. If you deconfigure sysfs, it still works. > Since it's independent like that, there's no way it's "tied". We could carry on this argument indefinitely. Yes, the device_may_wakeup stuff does work without sysfs. But it doesn't do anything significant; it amounts to no more than device_can_wakeup(). AFAIK there's no way to change the setting of the may_wakeup flag other than via sysfs. That's what I meant by "tied". > > > No; I'm saying the driver model is used to record that the hardware mechanism > > > isn't available. The fact that it's because of an implementation artifact > > > (bad silicon, or board layout, etc) versus a design artifact (silicon designed > > > without that feature) is immaterial ... in either case, the system can't use > > > the mechanism. > > > > But the information is being recorded in the wrong spot. The correct test > > should use device_can_wakeup, not device_may_wakeup. The can_wakeup flag > > is the one which records whether or not the hardware mechanism is actually > > available. > > Go look again. "may" implies (i) can , and (ii) should. So if there's a > hardware quirk registered, (i) always fails. And in the not-uncommon case > where the device misbehavior isn't known to the kernel, userspace has the > option of making (ii) kick in (the workaround mentioned above). This is a > generic approach, it works on all wakeup-capable devices. > > So "may" is correct, and "can" is insufficient. Things work differently in uhci-hcd. I still haven't submitted the patch to add device_may_wakeup support (although it was written quite a while ago and may have been posted to linux-usb-devel; I can't remember). However even when it is added and may_wakeup is off, autostop will still function. It won't rely on interrupts or other wakeup events, though -- instead the root-hub status polling mechanism will be used. Alan Stern - 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