linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] suspend/hibernation: Fix racing timers

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: <53D083C5.2000501@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:55:49 -0700
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] suspend/hibernation: Fix racing timers

On 07/21/2014 10:35 AM, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
> On platforms that do not power off during suspend, successfully entering
> suspend races with timers.
>
> The race happening in a couple of location is:
>
>   1. disable IRQs 	(e.g. arch_suspend_disable_irqs())
>      ...
>   2. syscore_suspend()
>         -> tick_suspend() 	(timers are turned off here)
>      ...
>   3. wfi		(wait for wake-IRQ here)
>
> Between steps 1 and 2 the timers can still generate interrupts that are
> not handled and stay pending until step 3. That pending IRQ causes an
> immediate - spurious - wake.
>
> The solution is to remove the timekeeping suspend/resume functions from
> the syscore functions and explictly call them at the appropriate time in
> the suspend/hibernation patchs. I.e. timers are suspend _before_ IRQs
> get disabled. And accordingly in the resume path.

So.. I sort of follow this, though from the description disabling
timekeeping to turn off timers seems a little indirect (I do see that
suspending timekeeping calls clockevents_suspend() which is the key
part). Maybe this could be clarified in a future version of the patch
description?

I worry that moving timekeeping_suspend earlier in the suspend process
might cause problems where things access time in the suspend path. I
recall these orderings have been problematic in the past, and slightly
tweaking them can often destabilize things badly.

I wonder if it would be better just to move the clockevent_suspend()
call to the earlier site, that way timers are halted but timekeeping
continues until its normal suspend point.

thanks
-john

--
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/