linux-kernel - Re: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500 (bisected)

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:	Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:18:07 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
	lenb@...nel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	tiwai@...e.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500 (bisected)

On Saturday, 6 of December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > It only affects the legacy handling, but the non-legacy handling was left
> > untouched.  IOW, the old "default" functions are still there and are being
> > called by the "non-legacy" code (it's only used by USB at the moment, AFAICS).
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > Anyway, I did the test doing it only to the devices which don't have any
> > non-default suspend-resume handling at all and _that_ apparently fixed the
> > problem on my box. :-)
> 
> Which makes sense, btw. Because if you do the pci_save_state() on a device 
> that _does_ have a suspend function, you'll be saving the post-suspend 
> state - ie the device turned off.
> 
> So yeah, we really can only do the default suspend if the device has no 
> pre-existing suspend function - or we'd need to make sure that all PCI 
> drivers that do have suspend functions would only do the higher-level 
> functionality.
> 
> Anyway, what I'm most interested in hearing is whether this actually 
> improves your situation.

Yes, it does, from what I can tell at the moment. :-)

Tomorrow I'll do more testing to (hopefully) confirm that.

> I can _easily_ see that your resume problem could be due to interrupt
> timing. That's especially true if there are shared interrupts, but even in
> the absense of that, I'm not at all sure that the e1000e resume code is
> interrupt-safe, for example. 

Agreed.

Thanks,
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/