| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:35:42 +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 Monday 19 April 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2010, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 16-04-10 20:00:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 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().
> >
> > Is this something BIOS specific?
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Are there any debug options I can turn on to provide some information?
>
> We can only check what the kernel tells us before power off, but all that seems
> correct.
>
> > Btw. what exactly does this mean? In what state is the laptop while it
> > is turned off and GPE is enabled?
>
> If a GPE is enabled, then some part of the chipset has power provided so that
> it can signal wakeup.
>
> I'll look into it a bit more later today.
Please try the patch below. It kind of restores the previous behavior,
let's see if it changes anything.
Rafael
---
drivers/acpi/acpica/evgpeblk.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/acpica/evgpeblk.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/acpi/acpica/evgpeblk.c
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/acpi/acpica/evgpeblk.c
@@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ acpi_ev_match_prw_and_gpe(acpi_handle ob
union acpi_operand_object *pkg_desc;
union acpi_operand_object *obj_desc;
u32 gpe_number;
- acpi_status status;
+ acpi_status status = AE_OK;
ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE(ev_match_prw_and_gpe);
@@ -439,13 +439,15 @@ acpi_ev_match_prw_and_gpe(acpi_handle ob
if (gpe_device == target_gpe_device) {
gpe_event_info = acpi_ev_gpeblk_event_info(gpe_block,
gpe_number);
- if (gpe_event_info)
+ if (gpe_event_info) {
+ status = acpi_ev_disable_gpe(gpe_event_info);
gpe_event_info->flags |= ACPI_GPE_CAN_WAKE;
+ }
}
cleanup:
acpi_ut_remove_reference(pkg_desc);
- return_ACPI_STATUS(AE_OK);
+ return_ACPI_STATUS(status);
}
/*******************************************************************************
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists