linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM: suspend_device_irqs(): don't disable wakeup IRQs

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: <4d34a0a70905211953r1138a554w3b7aa99770ba15e2@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 May 2009 11:53:07 +0900
From:	Kim Kyuwon <chammoru@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: suspend_device_irqs(): don't disable wakeup IRQs

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 May 2009, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Kevin Hilman
>> > <khilman@...prootsystems.com> wrote:
>> >> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon,  4 May 2009 17:27:04 -0700 Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Interrupts that are flagged as wakeup sources via set_irq_wake()
>> >>>> should not be disabled for suspend.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Why not?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> If an interrupt is a wakeup source, and it is disabled at the chip
>> >> level, it will no longer generate interrupts, and thus no longer wake
>> >> up the system.
>> >>
>> >> I'd be interested in hearing why wakeup interrupts should be disabled
>> >> during suspend.
>
> That depends on whether or not they are used for anything else than wake-up.
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >>>
>> >>> If this fixes some bug then please provide a description of that bug?
>> >>
>> >> The bug is that on TI OMAP, interrupts that are used for wakeup events
>> >> are disabled by this code causing the system to no longer wake up.
>> >
>> > What do you do if the interrupt triggers right after your driver has
>> > returned from its late suspend hook?
>>
>> If it's a wakeup IRQ, I assume you want it to prevent suspend.
>>
>> But I don't see how that can happen in the current code. IIUC, by the
>> time your late suspend hook is run, your device IRQ is already
>> disabled, so it won't trigger an interrupt that will be caught by
>> check_wakeup_irqs() anyways.
>
> My understanding of __disable_irq() was that it didn't actually disable the
> IRQ at the hardware level, allowing the CPU to actually receive the interrupt
> and acknowledge it, but preventing the device driver for receiving it.  Does
> it work differently on the affected systems?

Hi, Rafael.
Sorry for bring the old issue but please let me ask you about
suspend_device_irqs() function.

__disable_irq() disables the IRQ at the hardware level in the
following irq_chips

i8259A_chip
i8259_pic
i8259A_chip
bfin_internal_irqchip
crisv10_irq_type
crisv32_irq_type
h8300irq_chip
m_irq_chip
mn10300_cpu_pic_level
xtensa_irq_chip
iop13xx_msi_chip
msi_irq

Because these irq_chips mask interrupts in 'disable' hook.

Thus, your suspend_device_irqs() function disables all IRQs at the
hardware level on all architectures which use irq_chips listed above
in suspend state.
Is this really what you wanted?

If interrupt can wake up the system from suspend in some architectures
and if disable_irq_wake is not supported in these architectures, I
wonder if suspend_device_irqs() don't allow waking up by interrupt.

Regards,
Kyuwon
--
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/