| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4F8DF673.8050605@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:02:11 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
CC: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@...ricsson.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] rtc/interface.c: kills suspend-to-ram
On 04/17/2012 01:11 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 12-04-17 01:13 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> ..
>> - rtc->ops->alarm_irq_enable(rtc->dev.parent, false);
>> + //rtc->ops->alarm_irq_enable(rtc->dev.parent, false);
>> + dump_stack();
> ..
>
> Okay, the call into here is coming from a "hwclock -w -u" line
> in the system suspend script.
>
> Since that command isn't touching the hardware Alarm,
> then neither should the Linux kernel. Yet it is touching it.
> Pid: 4353, comm: hwclock Tainted: P O 3.3.2 #5
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff8123cfcd>] ? rtc_timer_remove+0x66/0xb2
> [<ffffffff8103d2ff>] ? should_resched+0x5/0x23
> [<ffffffff8123d21b>] ? rtc_update_irq_enable+0xd0/0x108
> [<ffffffff812dd582>] ? __mutex_lock_common.isra.5+0x3b/0x166
> [<ffffffff8123e058>] ? rtc_dev_ioctl+0x36d/0x468
> [<ffffffff8101b78a>] ? do_page_fault+0x264/0x2ce
> [<ffffffff81027650>] ? timespec_add_safe+0x33/0x63
> [<ffffffff810077a8>] ? read_tsc+0x5/0x14
> [<ffffffff810483fa>] ? timekeeping_get_ns+0xd/0x2a
> [<ffffffff810ab492>] ? do_vfs_ioctl+0x45a/0x49c
> [<ffffffff810abb8e>] ? poll_select_copy_remaining+0xdb/0xfb
> [<ffffffff810ab511>] ? sys_ioctl+0x3d/0x60
> [<ffffffff812df222>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
Thanks again for testing and sending the backtrace in the other mail
(pasted above).
Unfortunately, I'm not sure the assessment above is correct. If you
strace hwclock -w -u you'll see:
...
ioctl(3, PHN_SET_REGS or RTC_UIE_ON, 0) = 0
...
ioctl(3, PHN_NOT_OH or RTC_UIE_OFF, 0) = 0
...
Which is the UIE alarm being turned on and then back off. The UIE mode
has been emulated using the AIE alarm since ~2.6.38. So technically the
kernel is touching the hardware alarm, and has been for a bit. The
recent difference is that previously we'd drop the soft-timer and then
it would be possible we'd get one final hardware alarm which we'd
(ideally) ignore. But that could cause problems with systems waking up
immediately after suspend/poweroff. So now when we drop the soft-timer,
if there's no other soft-timers pending, we also turn off the hardware
alarm. Thus, why we see rtc_timer_remove() being called from the ioctl.
>
>> CMOS_WRITE(rtc_control, RTC_CONTROL);
>> - hpet_mask_rtc_irq_bit(mask);
>> + //hpet_mask_rtc_irq_bit(mask);
>>
>> - cmos_checkintr(cmos, rtc_control);
>> + //cmos_checkintr(cmos, rtc_control);
> ...
>
> The problem still occurs (lockup on suspend)
> with both lines above commented out.
>
> Note that it's not 100% in any case, more like 8/10,
> indicating a possible strong race condition somewhere.
Thanks again for the testing! I'm still a little bit baffled what
would be going on. As you said in your other mail, it seems to only
affect certain versions of the same hardware, so its likely a bios
issue. Even so, it could be the rtc-cmos code is just missing something.
> I think all that should be done here, is to change the kernel
> to NOT enable/disable the Alarm unless told to do so by
> an explicit userspace action. Eg. writing to /sys/../wakealarm
> and/or /proc/acpi/alarm.
>
> If userspace leaves the alarm alone, then so should the kernel when possible.
> That's the old behaviour before the new alarm_irq_enable() stuff.
>
Well, I'd really like to better understand what is going wrong in this
case. Disabling the alarm shouldn't cause suspend problems, even if it
was redundant. So if we can better understand the mechanics of the
issue, we can better work around it.
If you could, would you mind booting a unmodified kernel w/ "nohpet" to
see if this is hpet related?
Then, please run with the debug patch below on an otherwise unmodified
kernel, then send me the complete dmesg.
Finally, I don't think you sent me your .config, would you mind sending
that as well?
Thanks so much again!
-john
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
index 7d5f56e..44740b8 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c
@@ -303,9 +303,12 @@ static void cmos_irq_enable(struct cmos_rtc *cmos, unsigned char mask)
*/
rtc_control = CMOS_READ(RTC_CONTROL);
cmos_checkintr(cmos, rtc_control);
+ printk("cmos_irq_enable: Read: 0x%02x Mask: 0x%02x ", (int)rtc_control, (int)mask);
rtc_control |= mask;
CMOS_WRITE(rtc_control, RTC_CONTROL);
+ printk("wrote: 0x%02x\n", (int)rtc_control);
+
hpet_set_rtc_irq_bit(mask);
cmos_checkintr(cmos, rtc_control);
@@ -316,8 +319,10 @@ static void cmos_irq_disable(struct cmos_rtc *cmos, unsigned char mask)
unsigned char rtc_control;
rtc_control = CMOS_READ(RTC_CONTROL);
+ printk("cmos_irq_disable: Read: 0x%02x Mask: 0x%02x ", (int)rtc_control, (int)mask);
rtc_control&= ~mask;
CMOS_WRITE(rtc_control, RTC_CONTROL);
+ printk("wrote: 0x%02x\n", (int)rtc_control);
hpet_mask_rtc_irq_bit(mask);
cmos_checkintr(cmos, rtc_control);
@@ -554,6 +559,9 @@ static irqreturn_t cmos_interrupt(int irq, void *p)
*/
irqstat = CMOS_READ(RTC_INTR_FLAGS);
rtc_control = CMOS_READ(RTC_CONTROL);
+
+ printk("cmos_interrupt: irqstat: 0x%02x control: 0x%02x\n", irqstat, rtc_control);
+
if (is_hpet_enabled())
irqstat = (unsigned long)irq& 0xF0;
irqstat&= (rtc_control& RTC_IRQMASK) | RTC_IRQF;
@@ -671,6 +679,13 @@ cmos_do_probe(struct device *dev, struct resource *ports, int rtc_irq)
spin_lock_irq(&rtc_lock);
+
+
+ printk("cmos_do_probe: irqstat: 0x%02x control: 0x%02x valid: 0x%02x\n",
+ (int)CMOS_READ(RTC_INTR_FLAGS),
+ (int)CMOS_READ(RTC_CONTROL),
+ (int)CMOS_READ(RTC_VALID));
+
/* force periodic irq to CMOS reset default of 1024Hz;
*
* REVISIT it's been reported that at least one x86_64 ALI mobo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists