linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] PCI / ACPI / PM: Platform support for PCI PME wake-up (rev. 7)

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: <201002102358.00359.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:58:00 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Gary Hade <garyhade@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] PCI / ACPI / PM: Platform support for PCI PME wake-up (rev. 7)

On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:42:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 07:00:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:12:29AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:58:39PM -0800, Gary Hade wrote:
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > OK.  I already confirmed that the problem reproduces with your
> > > > > > > > > patches applied.  I am now in the process of trying vanilla
> > > > > > > > > 2.6.33-rc7.  If hot-add works with 2.6.33-rc7 I will give
> > > > > > > > > your patch a try.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The hot-add worked fine with an unpatched 2.6.33-rc7.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Good.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The new patch when added to the 2.6.33-rc7 tree that
> > > > > > > > included the original patchset unfortunately did not
> > > > > > > > correct the problem.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Bad.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Well, fortunately I have another one, but I haven't tested it myself yet except
> > > > > > > for checking that it builds.  Hopefully it won't break things more.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The patch below applies on top of 2.6.33-rc7 with my PCI runtime PM patchset
> > > > > > > applied.  Please test it and let me know the results.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Sorry, I sent a wrong version of the patch by mistake, it doesn't even build.
> > > > > > The correct one is appended.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No problem.  I received this message before doing anything with
> > > > > the previous one.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, both hot-add and hot-remove behaviors appear unchanged
> > > > > with this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, that's kind of strange.  I'm getting suspicious.
> > > > 
> > > > > I would like to dig into the code and help with the debugging
> > > > > but I am swamped with other things right now.  However, feel 
> > > > > free to continue using me for testing if you have other ideas
> > > > > you want me to try.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, of course I have some ideas. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > First, please try to test 2.6.33-rc7 with patches [1/9] - [7/9] applied
> > > > (ie. without the $subject patch and [9/9]).  Let's make sure we're debugging
> > > > the right patch.
> > > 
> > > It does look like both the hot-add and hot-remove issues were
> > > introduced by something in 1/9 through 7/9.  I started with a
> > > clean 2.6.33-rc7 tree and applied only 1/9 through 7/9.  I still
> > > see that lingering blinking amber LED with hot-remove and no
> > > response from the driver during hot-add.
> > > 
> > > Now I suppose you want me to start reverting 1/9 through 7/9
> > > in reverse order to find the culprit. :)
> > 
> > Actually, I think [6/9] is the offending one, so please try with [1/9] - [5/9]
> > applied and if that works, please apply [6/9] and retest to confirm it's the
> > culprit.
> 
> Yes, 6/9 also appeared to be the most likely suspect to me and
> I was already doing what you asked except in the opposite order.
> With 1/9 through 6/9 both the hot-add and hot-remove issues still
> reproduced.  After removing 6/9 both issues disappeared.

Thanks for verifying, I've already started to look for bugs in it.

What's your kernel command line, BTW?

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/