linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] - race-free suspend. Was: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

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: <201006030015.32313.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jun 2010 00:15:32 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org" <Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] - race-free suspend.  Was: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

On Thursday 03 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:41:14 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > - Would this fix the "bug"??
> > > - and address the issues that suspend-blockers was created to address?
> > > - or are the requirements on user-space too onerous?
> > 
> > In theory wakeup events can also happen after  wait_for_blockers() has returned
> > 0 and I guess we should rollback the suspend in such cases.
> > 
> 
> I naively assumed this was already the case, but on a slightly closer look at
> the code it seems not.
> 
> Presumably there is some point deep in the suspend code, probably after the
> call to sysdev_suspend, where interrupts are disabled and we are about to
> actually suspend.  At that point a simple "is a roll-back required" test
> could abort the suspend.

Yes.

> Then any driver that handles wake-up events, if it gets and event that (would
> normally cause a wakeup) PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE and PM_POST_SUSPEND, could set
> the "roll-back is required" flag.

That's my idea, but instead of setting a flag, I'd use a counter increased
every time there is a wakeup event.  Then, the core suspend core code
would store a pre-suspend value of the counter and compare it with
the current value after all wakeup event sources had been set.  If they
were different, the suspend would be aborted.

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/