linux-kernel - Re: Recent "Run the driver callback directly" patch breaks libertas suspend

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: <201203252309.48705.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:09:48 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Recent "Run the driver callback directly" patch breaks libertas suspend

Hi,

On Sunday, March 25, 2012, NeilBrown wrote:
> 
> Hi Rafael,
> 
>  Your recent patch:
>    commit 35cd133c
>    PM: Run the driver callback directly if the subsystem one is not there
> 
>  breaks suspend for my libertas wifi and probably other SDIO devices.

Well, the patch is not recent.  The _commit_ is more than three months old
and the patch has been around since the last November (at least).

>  SDIO (and possible MMC in general) has a protocol where the suspend
>  method can return -ENOSYS and this means "There is no point in suspending,
>  just turn me off".
>
>  The device itself "mmc1:0001" (I think) doesn't have any bus etc 'suspend'
>  function so the new code call the device's suspend function which returns
>  ENOSYS and the suspend fails.
> 
>  The previous code ignores the device as there is no bus suspend, and when it
>  gets to suspend the ancestor - which for me is omap_hsmmc.1, it calls the
>  device suspend function catches the ENOSYS, and turns it off.

Well, I can only call that a blatant abuse of the PM infrastructure.

>  I suspect just reverting it isn't the right long term solution, however I
>  can confirm that it works for me for now.

It's not a solution at all, because there's code that depends on it already in
the tree and the fact that it works for you doesn't mean it won't break other
systems.  So no, it's not an option.

>  I'm happy to try any alternate fixes you would like to suggest (but I cannot
>  promise how quickly I will get the testing done).
> 
>  (I'm testing with 3.3)

The only fix I can think of is to rework SDIO to stop abusing the PM callbacks.
I'll have a look at that next week, although I can't promise anything any time
soon, because I'm heading to San Francisco on Saturday.

Thanks,
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/