linux-kernel - Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

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: <200709251754.46951.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:54:45 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>
Cc:	Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>,
	Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@...e.fr>,
	Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@...glemail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ACPI power off regression in 2.6.23-rc8 (NOT in rc7)

On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 16:45, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 16:19, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 15:15, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:53, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >>>>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:05, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 13:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:58, Damien Wyart wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP set,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> because I do not have CONFIG_PM_SLEEP set,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> because I do not want SUSPEND and/or HIBERNATION.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Same answer from my side: I do not have CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP for the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reason (and this worked fine without them in rc7). I do not think
> >>>>>>>>>>>> these settings should have changed between rc7 and rc8.
> >>>>>>>>>> Well, we haven't changed much.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, another test I just did: on another computer, rc8 is fine
> >>>>>>>>>>> regarding ACPI power off, even if CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP is not set. I can
> >>>>>>>>>>> provide config if needed.
> >>>>>>>>>> On the box that fails to power off, can you please test -rc8 with these two
> >>>>>>>>>> commits reverted:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> commit 5a50fe709d527f31169263e36601dd83446d5744
> >>>>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states addendum
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> commit f216cc3748a3a22c2b99390fddcdafa0583791a2
> >>>>>>>>>> ACPI: suspend: consolidate handling of Sx states.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and see if it works?
> >>>>>>>>> If it does, please test the patch from this message
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119052978117735&w=4
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> on top of vanilla 2.6.23-rc8.
> >>>>>>>> You will need one more patch on top of just mentioned one.
> >>>>>>> Hm, why did you put acpi_target_sleep_state under CONFIG_SUSPEND?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> CONFIG_HIBERNATION needs acpi_target_sleep_state  too.
> >>>>>> Agree, attaching updated patch.
> >>>>> Well, please use "ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP" instead of
> >>>>> "if defined(CONFIG_SUSPEND)||defined(CONFIG_HIBERNATION)",
> >>>>> as you did with the second block.
> >>>> I was thinking about that, but it seem to be less clear... 
> >>>> We need this variable only for suspend or hibernation, nothing else.
> >>>> with pm_sleep it is not visible at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>> Well, PM_SLEEP is defined as (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION), please have a look
> >>> at kernel/power/Kconfig, and it was introduced exactly for the conditions like
> >>> this.
> >> I've seen this then I wrote the patch :) See my point, it is not clear, 
> >> that PM_SLEEP is equivalent to SUSPEND || HIBERNATION, one needs to 
> >> grep Kconfig files to find that -- it means that code becomes less readable, 
> >> and I would like to avoid that.
> > 
> > I see your point.  Still, you are using PM_SLEEP in the same file, so someone
> > reading the code for the first time will have to find out what it is anyway.
> In the second place it depends on header file using PM_SLEEP, so it makes sense.
> > 
> > OTOH, the only function of PM_SLEEP is to be a replacement for
> > (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION).  It has no other meaning whatsoever.
> > 
> > [Well, sorry, I couldn't invent a better name.]
> >  
> >>> IOW, if we want something to be used for anything else than suspend or
> >>> hibernation, it shouldn't be defined under PM_SLEEP.
> >> Agree, but we should distinguish there it is better to use PM_SLEEP, 
> >> and there it is better to use (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION) just to be more expressive...
> > 
> > Well, since PM_SLEEP is used as (SUSPEND || HIBERNATION) everywhere else,
> > I think that it would actually be confusing not to use it here. :-)
> Ok, patch is here.

Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>

and thanks for fixing this.
-
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/