linux-kernel - Re: Reworking suspend-resume sequence (was: Re: PCI PM: Restore standard config registers of all devices early)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:11:26 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jesse Barnes <jesse.barnes@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Reworking suspend-resume sequence (was: Re: PCI PM: Restore
 standard config registers of all devices early)

On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 11:19 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > Hmm. The _normal_ simple irq handler does this the way I described, but 
> > for some reason the "handle_edge_irq()" does not. And the reason is 
> > actually a buglet: it needs to mask things for the "recursive interrupt" 
> > case.
> 
> Btw, just to clarify: none of this happens at the actual "irq_disable()" 
> time: it only happens if you get an interrupt _while_ it's disabled. Which 
> obviously shouldn't happen in the shutdown/wakeup path anyway for MSI, 
> since the interrupts aren't shared, but it would be good to just be extra 
> safe.
> 
> I do suspect we could/should just get rid of the msi masking entirely, but 
> that may be too scary a step.

I agree :-) It's been a source of problem anyway, I remember hearing
some device reacting strangely (aka, losing MSIs) when masked, and it's
not even implemented by all devices (somebody had the "smart" idea of
making an optional feature). So it ends up being a lot of not very
useful code...

> For the current suspend/resume situation, maybe it's enough to know that 
> it shouldn't be happening anyway, and even if it _does_ happen on a device 
> that has been shut down, it's just not going to do anything. Sure, it's 
> doing that "writel/readl", but if it gets lost, who really cares? Nobody.

Note that I still believe that life would be simpler to just keep the
current local_irq_save() and just tweak might_sleep() etc... so that
ACPI is safe to call. At least it can be done orthogonally to this
interrupt change.

IE. As I said earlier, that interrupt masking -will- change the exposed
semantics of suspend_late() to drivers. In fact, iirc, it's you who
advertised initially suspend_late() as being the 'easy' way to write a
PCI driver suspend routine specifically because you don't have to bother
about being re-entered from anywhere for things like request processing
etc... With the change, the kernel is essentially still operating,
timers are ticking, we may even be scheduling, so this important
assumption is gone. That means a lot more chances for driver to screw
up.

Cheers,
Ben.

--
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/