linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / sleep: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices unnecessarily

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: <2673732.vGhgFDMBON@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Tue, 13 May 2014 18:16:53 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] PM / sleep: Mechanism to avoid resuming runtime-suspended devices unnecessarily

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:46:55 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > > A wakeup request from the hardware could cause a runtime resume to 
> > > occur at this time.  The barrier wouldn't prevent that.
> > > 
> > > It's unlikely, I agree, but not impossible.
> > 
> > Yeah, I didn't think about that.
> 
> Come to think of it, if the hardware sends a wakeup request then it
> must have been enabled for remote wakeup.  And if the hardware settings
> are appropriate for system suspend then it must be enabled for system
> wakeup.  Consequently a wakeup from the hardware ought to abort the
> system suspend in any case.  So maybe we don't care about this 
> scenario.
> 
> On the other hand, there may be other mechanisms that could cause a 
> runtime resume at this inconvenient time.  A timer routine, for 
> instance.
> 
> > But that also can occur in __device_suspend(), after we've checked the flag
> > and decided not to invoke the ->suspend() callback, right?  So moving the
> > check in there doesn't help much I'd say.  It closes the race window, but
> > that's it.
> > 
> > That means that the whole approach based on ->prepare() is problematic
> > unless we somehow mix it with disabling runtime PM.
> 
> Maybe the call to __pm_runtime_disable() should be moved from
> __device_suspend_late() to __device_suspend(), after the callback has
> been invoked (or skipped, as the case may be).  Then after runtime PM
> has been disabled, you can check the device's status has changed and go
> back to invoke the callback if necessary.

We moved __pm_runtime_disable() to __device_suspend_late() to be able to
use pm_runtime_resume() in __device_suspend() (and we actually do that in
some places now).

But, in principle, we can do __pm_runtime_disable() temporarily in some place
between ->prepare() and ->suspend(), it doesn't matter if that's in
device_prepare() in __device_suspend() really.  Then, we can check the device's
runtime PM status (that'd need to be done carefully to take the disabling into
account) and
(1) if the device is runtime-suspended, set direct_complete for it without
    enabling runtime PM, or
(2) if the device is not runtime-suspended, clear direct_complete for it
    and re-enable runtime PM.
and in case of (1) we would re-enable runtime PM in device_complete().

That should work I suppose?

Of course, question is what ->prepare() is supposed to do then if it needs
to check the state of the device before deciding whether or not to return 1.
I guess it would need to disable runtime PM around that check too.

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/