| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100426150503.GA4005@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:05:03 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
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 Sun 25-04-10 04:35:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.
Again, no success. Just to make sure that I didn't screw anything. I
have used just the following patch on top of the clean rc5 (your patch
has failed with some rejects but I guess that the following should do
the same):
commit 65eafe4a504e3bb2c13b4feb8590dc52e7439baa
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
Date: Sun Apr 25 04:35:42 2010 +0200
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/evgpeblk.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/evgpeblk.c
index fef7219..b6e1e0c 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/evgpeblk.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/evgpeblk.c
@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ acpi_ev_match_prw_and_gpe(acpi_handle obj_handle,
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);
@@ -447,12 +447,13 @@ acpi_ev_match_prw_and_gpe(acpi_handle obj_handle,
gpe_block->
block_base_number];
+ 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);
}
/*******************************************************************************
>
> 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/
--
Michal Hocko
L3 team
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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