| 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: <1513537.Pdbg9h7lkq@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 17:05:59 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com,
vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 RFC] ACPI / hotplug: Use device offline/online for graceful hot-removal
On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 05:49:38 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 14:29 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >
> > Modify the generic ACPI hotplug code to be able to check if devices
> > scheduled for hot-removal may be gracefully removed from the system
> > using the device offline/online mechanism introduced previously.
> >
> > Namely, make acpi_scan_hot_remove() which handles device hot-removal
> > call device_offline() for all physical companions of the ACPI device
> > nodes involved in the operation and check the results. If any of
> > the device_offline() calls fails, the function will not progress to
> > the removal phase (which cannot be aborted), unless its (new) force
> > argument is set (in case of a failing offline it will put the devices
> > offlined by it back online).
> >
> > In support of the 'forced' hot-removal, add a new sysfs attribute
> > 'force_remove' that will reside in every ACPI hotplug profile
> > present under /sys/firmware/acpi/hotplug/.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-firmware-acpi | 9 +-
> > drivers/acpi/internal.h | 2
> > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 97 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > drivers/acpi/sysfs.c | 27 +++++++
> > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 3
> > 5 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> :
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> > @@ -120,7 +120,61 @@ acpi_device_modalias_show(struct device
> > }
> > static DEVICE_ATTR(modalias, 0444, acpi_device_modalias_show, NULL);
> >
> > -static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> > +static acpi_status acpi_bus_offline_companions(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl,
> > + void *data, void **ret_p)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_device *device = NULL;
> > + struct acpi_device_physical_node *pn;
> > + bool force = *((bool *)data);
> > + acpi_status status = AE_OK;
> > +
> > + if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device))
> > + return AE_OK;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&device->physical_node_lock);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(pn, &device->physical_node_list, node) {
>
> I do not think physical_node_list is set for ACPI processor devices, so
> this code is NOP at this point. I think properly initializing
> physical_node_list for CPU and memblk is one of the key items in this
> approach.
It surely is. :-)
I've almost done that for CPUs, but that still requires some more work.
Hopefully, it'll be mostly done later this week.
Memory will take some more time I guess, though.
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = device_offline(pn->dev);
> > + if (force)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + status = AE_ERROR;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + pn->put_online = !ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&device->physical_node_lock);
> > +
> > + return status;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static acpi_status acpi_bus_online_companions(acpi_handle handle, u32 lvl,
> > + void *data, void **ret_p)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_device *device = NULL;
> > + struct acpi_device_physical_node *pn;
> > +
> > + if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device))
> > + return AE_OK;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&device->physical_node_lock);
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(pn, &device->physical_node_list, node)
> > + if (pn->put_online) {
> > + device_online(pn->dev);
> > + pn->put_online = false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&device->physical_node_lock);
> > +
> > + return AE_OK;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct acpi_device *device, bool force)
> > {
> > acpi_handle handle = device->handle;
> > acpi_handle not_used;
> > @@ -136,10 +190,30 @@ static int acpi_scan_hot_remove(struct a
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > + lock_device_offline();
> > +
> > + status = acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > + NULL, acpi_bus_offline_companions, &force,
> > + NULL);
> > + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) || force)
> > + status = acpi_bus_offline_companions(handle, 0, &force, NULL);
> > +
> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status) && !force) {
> > + acpi_bus_online_companions(handle, 0, NULL, NULL);
> > + acpi_walk_namespace(ACPI_TYPE_ANY, handle, ACPI_UINT32_MAX,
> > + acpi_bus_online_companions, NULL, NULL,
> > + NULL);
> > + unlock_device_offline();
>
> Don't we need put_device(&device->dev) here?
Yes, we do. Thanks for spotting that!
Thanks for the comments. I'll reply to your other messages later today
or tomorrow.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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