linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 2/3] genirq: Do not consider the irqs with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND in check_wakeup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A258027@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:26:32 +0000
From:	"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To:	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3] genirq: Do not consider the irqs with
 IRQF_NO_SUSPEND in check_wakeup_irqs()

Hello Thomas,

Sorry to miss the V2 in the subject.
I have updated the comments in this new patch, could you consider to take it into upstream?

Thanks.

Best Regards
Liu chuansheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Chuansheng
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:58 PM
> To: tglx@...utronix.de
> Cc: mingo@...hat.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng
> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] genirq: Do not consider the irqs with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
> in check_wakeup_irqs()
> 
> 
> According to commit 9c6079aa1bf(genirq: Do not consider disabled
> wakeup irqs), we should not break the suspend when one interrupt has
> been disabled before suspending and is pending there.
> 
> But there is another case missed:
> If an interrupt which is marked IRQF_NO_SUSPEND has been disabled
> before suspend invocation then desc->depth is 1 and therefor it should
> not be checked for IRQS_PENDING in check_wakeup_irqs().
> 
> Here also checking if the desc->istate & IRQS_SUSPENDED is true to avoid
> this case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: liu chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
> ---
>  kernel/irq/pm.c |    9 ++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> index cb228bf..f02a03d 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> @@ -107,9 +107,16 @@ int check_wakeup_irqs(void)
>  		 * Only interrupts which are marked as wakeup source
>  		 * and have not been disabled before the suspend check
>  		 * can abort suspend.
> +		 *
> +		 * Meanwhile, if an interrupt which is marked IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
> +		 * has been disabled before suspend invocation then
> +		 * desc->depth is 1 and therefor it should not be checked
> +		 * for IRQS_PENDING, so also adding the checking of
> +		 * desc->istate & IRQS_SUSPENDED for this case.
>  		 */
>  		if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) {
> -			if (desc->depth == 1 && desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING)
> +			if (desc->depth == 1 && (desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING)
> +				&& (desc->istate & IRQS_SUSPENDED))
>  				return -EBUSY;
>  			continue;
>  		}
> --
> 1.7.0.4
> 
>