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]
Date:	Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:51:09 +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 Mon 26-04-10 20:51:09, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > 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):
> 
> Thanks for testing.  Did you try the second thing, ie. try to comment out the
> acpi_enable_gpe() in drivers/acpi/wakeup.c:acpi_wakeup_device_init() and
> retest (if you haven't done that already)?

I have tried it just now and still no success.


commit 1a7e7c9ac82aa2de185fa2f686417a5eb7765420
Author: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Date:   Tue Apr 27 08:22:23 2010 +0200

    disable acpi_enable_gpe in acpi_wakeup_device_init
    
    as suggested by Rafael.

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c b/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c
index 4b9d339..a0f4859 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/wakeup.c
@@ -113,8 +113,9 @@ int __init acpi_wakeup_device_init(void)
 		if (!dev->wakeup.flags.always_enabled ||
 		    dev->wakeup.state.enabled)
 			continue;
- 		acpi_enable_gpe(dev->wakeup.gpe_device, dev->wakeup.gpe_number,
+ 		/*acpi_enable_gpe(dev->wakeup.gpe_device, dev->wakeup.gpe_number,
  				ACPI_GPE_TYPE_WAKE);
+		 */
 		dev->wakeup.state.enabled = 1;
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&acpi_device_lock);

On top of the previous patch. If I understand that correctly then this
is really strange because this patch disables GPE completely, doesn't
it?

> 
> 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/

-- 
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/