linux-kernel - Re: 3.10-rc1 system starts regular boot when waking from s2ram

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: <12938302.tF5W4zpWEQ@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Fri, 17 May 2013 14:23:51 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao 
	<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>, x86@...nel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: 3.10-rc1 system starts regular boot when waking from s2ram

On Friday, May 17, 2013 02:09:30 PM Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 17-05-13 14:11:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, May 17, 2013 09:54:46 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 15-05-13 11:56:08, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > OK, I have bisected it to 78d77df7 (x86-64, init: Do not set NX bits on
> > > > non-NX capable hardware). Reverting the patch on top of 3.10-rc1 fixes
> > > > the issue for me and the machine resumes just fine.
> > > > 
> > > > Let's add involved people to the CC.
> > > > 
> > > > The original message with the confing and dmesg is bellow.
> > > 
> > > Anybody had chance to look at this? I am quite surprised that something
> > > that is in init code might influence resume from suspend path. Or is it
> > > just a side effect of some other changes in that area?
> > > 
> > > <goes and checks the latest 3.9 stable which has the backport of the patch>
> > > 
> > > Yes the latest stable is affected as well!
> > 
> > Well, I suppose there will be more response if you send a revert request to
> > Linus.
> 
> Maybe the patch should be reverted in the stable tree right now

No, it doesn't work like that.  It won't be reverted in -stable before it is
reverted in the Linus' tree.

> - I am not sure about all the consequences as from reading the changelog
> I do not understand which bug the patch is supposed to fix.

That really doesn't matter.  If it breaks things, it is a revert candidate
regardless.

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/