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  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]
Date:	Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:49:17 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <>,,
	Linux PM list <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED

On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:25:29 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 25, 2014 11:00:12 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 25, 2014 03:25:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > OK, so Rafael said there's devices that keep on raising their interrupt
> > > > until they get attention. Ideally this won't happen because the device
> > > > is suspended etc.. But I'm sure there's some broken piece of hardware
> > > > out there that'll make it go boom.
> > > 
> > > So here's an idea.
> > > 
> > > What about returning IRQ_NONE rather than IRQ_HANDLED for "suspended"
> > > interrupts (after all, that's what a sane driver would do for a
> > > suspended device I suppose)?
> > > 
> > > If the line is really shared and the interrupt is taken care of by
> > > the other guy sharing the line, we'll be all fine.
> > > 
> > > If that is not the case, on the other hand, and something's really
> > > broken, we'll end up disabling the interrupt and marking it as
> > > IRQS_SPURIOUS_DISABLED (if I understand things correctly).
> > 
> > We should not wait 100k unhandled interrupts in that case. We know
> > already at the first unhandled interrupt that the shit hit the fan.
> The first one may be a bus glitch or some such.  Also I guess we still need to
> allow the legitimate "no suspend" guy to handle his interrupts until it gets
> too worse.
> Also does it really hurt to rely on the generic mechanism here?  We regard
> it as fine at all other times after all.
> > I'll have a deeper look how we can sanitize the whole wake/no_suspend
> > logic vs. shared interrupts.

One more idea, on top of the prototype patch that I posted

The problem with enable_irq_wake() is that it only takes one argument, so
if that's a shared interrupt, we can't really say which irqaction is supposed
to handle wakeup interrupts should they occur.

To address this we can introduce enable_device_irq_wake() that will take
an additional dev_id argument (that must be the one passed to request_irq() or
the operation will fail) that can be used to identify the irqaction for
handling the wakeup interrupts.  It can work by setting IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
for the irqaction in question and doing the rest along the lines of
irq_set_irq_wake(irq, 1).  disable_device_irq_wake() will then clear
IRQF_NO_SUSPEND (it also has to be passed the dev_id argument).

If we have that, the guys who need to set up device interrupts (ie. interrupts
normally used for signaling input events etc) for system wakeup will need to
use enable_device_irq_wake() and that should just work.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists