linux-kernel - Re: Commit 500f7147cf5bafd139056d521536b10c2bc2e154 breaks _resume

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: <AANLkTimW_V96w4USjxX1=8_r6g-XJzdcGbYn_JDr9ANL@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:45:16 +0800
From:	Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>
To:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc:	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Commit 500f7147cf5bafd139056d521536b10c2bc2e154 breaks _resume_

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> wrote:
>> At Mon, 7 Feb 2011 13:02:46 +0800,
>> Jeff Chua wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com> wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >> One last step: move contents of intel_crtc_reset() back to
>>> >> intel_crtc_init() one by one.
>>> >>
>>> >> The active flag is my suspicion. I was thinking that we brought up the
>>> >> outputs in a similar manner upon resume as upon initial boot. On
>>> >> reflection, this is the not case.
>>> >>
>>> >> However, the first action we take inside modesetting is to disable the
>>> >> outputs about to be reconfigured. So setting active should be the right
>>> >> course of action so that cleanup any residual state from resume.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I am intrigued as to which line is the cause, and just where the
>>> >> machine becomes unresponsive...
>>> >
>>> > It's this line causing the problem.
>>> >
>>> > intel_crtc->active = true; /* force the pipe off on setup_init_config */
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > When it's called before entering intel_crtc_reset(&intel_crtc->base),
>>> > it works, but if called within the function, it doesn't work. Strange.
>>> > Not sure whether is passing the correct value to to_intel_crtc(crtc)?
>>>
>>> I've added printk() below and the function returns a different value
>>> of intel_crtc.
>>>
>>>
>>> static void intel_crtc_reset(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
>>> {
>>>         struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc);
>>>         printk("intel_crtc %p\n", intel_crtc); ===> intel_crtc ffff8802349d1000
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> printk("intel_crtc %p\n", intel_crtc); ===> intel_crtc ffff8802349d0000
>>> intel_crtc_reset(&intel_crtc->base);
>>
>> That's weird.  Since base is the first member, both intel_crtc and crtc
>> must be identical.
>
> In case I'm messing something up, here's my intel_display.c

Why not just pass intel_crtc as in

- static void intel_crtc_reset(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
+ static void intel_crtc_reset(struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc)

Jeff.
--
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/