linux-kernel - Re: [27/27] clockevents: Set noop handler in clockevents_exchange

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: <4EFDD39D.30802@canonical.com>
Date:	Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:07:09 -0700
From:	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Phil Miller <mille121@...inois.edu>
Subject: Re: [27/27] clockevents: Set noop handler in clockevents_exchange_device()

On 12/29/2011 06:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Jonathan Nieder<jrnieder@...il.com>  wrote:
>>
>> This is basically the reverse of 7c1e768974 (clockevents: prevent
>> clockevent event_handler ending up handler_noop, 2008-09-03).  The
>> rationale for the latter still applies.
>
> Hmm. You seem to be right. Instead of applying this to stable, it
> looks like we should revert it from mainline.
>
>>                    People have been reporting
>> the analagous patch to this one causing hangs on resume in 3.1.y and
>> 3.2 release candidates:
>>
>>   - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1233033
>>   - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1233389
>>   - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1233159
>>   - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1227868/focus=1230877
>>
>> So please consider reverting it for now.
>
> Thomas? It does seem to be broken and there do seem to be regression
> reports about it.
>
> Should I revert it, or do you have alternative fixes?
>
>                   Linus
> --

We (Ubuntu) are seeing this issue as well in both 3.0.13 and 3.2-rc6:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/24/33

Reverting that single patch alleviates the resume regression.

rtg
-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@...onical.com
--
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/