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]

Date:	Mon, 07 Feb 2011 09:52:55 +0100
From:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:	Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>
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_

At Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:36:33 +0800,
Jeff Chua 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

Thanks, that looks good.  What about other files?  Did you change
(especially intel_drv.h) from Linus git tree?

I'll also check later to be sure (now I have no machine for testing).


thanks,

Takashi
--
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/