linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: disable nonboot cpus before suspending devices

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]

Message-Id: <20100201075706.69b1d2c0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:57:06 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: disable nonboot cpus before suspending devices

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:30:04 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:

> On Monday 01 February 2010, Sebastian Ott wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> > 
> > since you didn't like the idea of calling the driver callbacks with just
> > one cpu enabled, we gave your patch: "MM / PM: Force GFP_NOIO during
> > suspend/hibernation and resume" a try and i can confirm that this
> > fixes the issue on s390.
> 
> Great, thanks for testing!
> 
> > Will this go in 2.6.33/stable?
> 
> That depends on Andrew, actually.
> 
> Andrew, what do you think of the patch at:
> http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/74740/mbox/ ?
> 
> It helps people and I don't see any major drawbacks of it.
> 

Seems sane.  A couple of minor things:

- the names mm_force_noio_allocations() and mm_allow_io_allocations()
  are a bit sucky.  Asymmetrical.

- the functions don't nest: if someone calls
  mm_force_noio_allocations() twice in succession then the kernel is
  all mucked up.  Why not:

gfp_t mm_set_gfp_mask(gfp_t mask)
{
	gfp_t ret = gfp_allowed_mask;

	gfp_allowed_mask = mask;
	return ret;
}

which is of course racy :)  Could add a local spinlock if really worried.

All your current callers can easily save the old value in a local.
--
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/