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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 06:29:30 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> To: Philippe Rétornaz <philippe.retornaz@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org CC: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Romain Perier <romain.perier@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/47] kernel: Add support for poweroff handler call chain On 10/20/2014 11:46 PM, Philippe Rétornaz wrote: > Hello > > [...] >> - Use raw notifiers protected by spinlocks instead of atomic notifiers > [...] > >> +/** >> + * do_kernel_power_off - Execute kernel poweroff handler call chain >> + * >> + * Calls functions registered with register_power_off_handler. >> + * >> + * Expected to be called from machine_power_off as last step of >> + * the poweroff sequence. >> + * >> + * Powers off the system immediately if a poweroff handler function >> + * has been registered. Otherwise does nothing. >> + */ >> +void do_kernel_power_off(void) >> +{ >> + spin_lock(&power_off_handler_lock); >> + raw_notifier_call_chain(&power_off_handler_list, 0, NULL); >> + spin_unlock(&power_off_handler_lock); >> +} > > I don't get it. You are still in atomic context inside the poweroff callback > since you lock it with a spinlock. > > It does not change much from the atomic notifier which was doing exactly the > same thing but with RCU: > > rcu_read_lock(); > ret = notifier_call_chain(&nh->head, val, v, nr_to_call, nr_calls); > rcu_read_unlock(); > > Why not using the blocking_notifier_* family ? > It will lock with a read-write semaphore under which you can sleep. > > For instance, twl4030_power_off will sleep, since it is doing I2C access. > So you cannot call it in atomic context. > Learning something new all the time. I assumed that spin_lock (unlike spin_lock_irqsafe) would not run in atomic context. I did not want to use a sleeping lock because I am not sure if that works for all architectures; some disable (local) interrupts before calling the function (eg arm and arm64), and I don't want to change that semantics. I have another idea how to get there without changing the lock situation while executing the call chain - just set a flag indicating that it is running and execute it without lock. Would that work ? Guenter -- 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