linux-kernel - Re: commit 9630bdd9 changes behavior of the poweroff

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: <201004162000.29861.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:00:29 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Tony Vroon <tony@...x.net>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: commit 9630bdd9 changes behavior of the poweroff - bug?

On Wednesday 14 April 2010, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 13-04-10 22:53:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 April 2010, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 13-04-10 01:01:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 10 April 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 09 April 2010, Tony Vroon wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > Please check if the patch below changes anything.
> > > > > > >  drivers/acpi/wakeup.c |    4 ++--
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That didn't change the behaviour for me, sorry.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, I would be sorry if it did, because the patch removed some useful code. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > > (I made sure to go through a full power down session before trying the
> > > > > > patched kernel)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for testing.  So it looks like we don't disable the GPE during power off.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'll try to figure out what's going on, please stay tuned.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you please check if the patch below changes the behavior?
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, it didn't help either (I have tried on top of the fresh
> > > rc4).
> > 
> > That gets really weird.
> > 
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/acpi/wakeup.c |    6 +++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c
> > > > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c
> > > > @@ -63,17 +63,17 @@ void acpi_enable_wakeup_device(u8 sleep_
> > > >  	list_for_each_safe(node, next, &acpi_wakeup_device_list) {
> > > >  		struct acpi_device *dev =
> > > >  			container_of(node, struct acpi_device, wakeup_list);
> > > > +		u8 action = ACPI_GPE_ENABLE;
> > 
> > Can you try to change the above to ACPI_GPE_DISABLE and retest, please?
> 
> Unfortunately didn't help as well...
> Just for reference:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c b/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c
> index 248b473..f23c08f 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c
> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ void acpi_enable_wakeup_device(u8 sleep_state)
>  	list_for_each_safe(node, next, &acpi_wakeup_device_list) {
>  		struct acpi_device *dev =
>  			container_of(node, struct acpi_device, wakeup_list);
> -		u8 action = ACPI_GPE_ENABLE;
> +		u8 action = ACPI_GPE_DISABLE;

That probably means the chipset enables the GPEs by itself _after_ we've
disabled them in acpi_enable_wakeup_device().

Unfortunately, I can't reproduce the issue on any of my test boxes and it's
hard to find the source of the problem staring at the code.

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/