linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.39-rc2 regression: X201s fails to resume b77dcf8460ae57d4eb9fd3633eb4f97b8fb20716

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1104120016490.2702@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:19:32 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
cc:	Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...nbossa.org>,
	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc2 regression: X201s fails to resume
 b77dcf8460ae57d4eb9fd3633eb4f97b8fb20716

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> 
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > > > > > Can the bluetooth folks please have a look at that ASAP? The obvious
> > > > > > fast fix for Linus tree is to revert the second hunk for now, but this
> > > > > > needs to be fixed proper.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Who will submit this patch? I'd rather have your name on it so that
> > > > > people come complain at you...
> > > > 
> > > > I took a shot at it and just sent a patch (also attached for convenience) 
> > > > that should solve the problem.
> > > 
> > > Aaarg. No. That patch reverts both hunks.
> > > 
> > > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > > @@ -586,9 +586,6 @@ static int hci_dev_do_close(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> > >  	hci_req_cancel(hdev, ENODEV);
> > >  	hci_req_lock(hdev);
> > >  
> > > -	/* Stop timer, it might be running */
> > > -	del_timer_sync(&hdev->cmd_timer);
> > > -
> > >  	if (!test_and_clear_bit(HCI_UP, &hdev->flags)) {
> > >  		hci_req_unlock(hdev);
> > >  		return 0;
> > > 
> > > As I said before you need that first hunk to stay for the case where
> > > there is no device up and you return via the !HCI_UP check. You just
> > > moved back to the state before as the stupid timer is active for
> > > whatever reason even when HCI_UP is not set.
> > 
> > if I read this right then we have the case that we arm this timer for no
> > real reason. A device in !HCI_UP should have nothing running. Certainly
> > not the cmd_timer since it will never process any commands.
> > 
> > According to Gustavo, the problem is really in the hci_reset logic were
> > we arm the timer even when shutting down the device.
> 
> The reason why the original patch was sent is, that the timer was
> running when the thing went out via the !HCI_UP path, which caused the
> whole thing to explode in the first place. I had no time to figure out
> why, but moving the del_timer_sync above the
> if (!test_and_clear_bit(HCI_UP, &hdev->flags)) solved it.

Oops. Hit send too fast.

Then it broke the resume on Keith machine and reverting just the hunk
which disarms the timer in the 

        if (hdev->sent_cmd) {

path made both scenarios working. So there are two problems:

     1) Why do we need the del_timer_sync() above the !HCI_UP check

     2) Why gets the timer rearmed after that

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/