linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.21-mm2: ACPI exception on resume

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]

Message-Id: <200705232256.28366.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2007 22:56:27 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-mm2: ACPI exception on resume

On Wednesday, 23 May 2007 19:48, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:13:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > While I agree with that, it would really be helpful if you tested the latest -rc
> > > kernel and saw if the bug was present in there.
> > > 
> > > If the bug is not present in the latest -rc, it'll be possible to identify the
> > > patch that causes it to appear in -mm and find the reason of the breakage.
> > 
> > And, once we know the reason, we will be able to find out how to best fix the
> > problem.
> > 
> > So, do please test latest -rc, or bissect to the last known-good kernel. As
> > I said, we need further data points to do anything.
> 
> This isn't conclusive as this bug is fairly hard to trigger, but it
> looks like the culprit may have been this patch and not anything in
> -mm or mainline. So the below patch doesn't help the problem it was
> intended for (lid switch no longer wakes up S2R after a S2D cycle) and
> appears to be implicated in making my EC unhappy.

Yes, this was just a debug patch.

We broke quite a few systems by placing platform_finish() before
device_resume() and I suspected your system could be one of them.

Apparently, that's not the case.

In 2.6.22-rc2 we also moved platform_prepare() to after device_suspend()
and that's why I asked you to test this kernel.

Greetings,
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/