linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/47] kernel: Add support for poweroff handler call chain

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: <544764B1.9020303@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:02:57 +0200
From:	Philippe Rétornaz <philippe.retornaz@...il.com>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, 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

Le 21/10/2014 15:29, Guenter Roeck a écrit :
> 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.
[...]
>>
>> 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.

You're right and it even disable all others CPUs (if any).
I don't understand why it needs to disable local interrupts since the
code path to pm_power_off is simply doing:

syscall -> migrate to reboot cpu -> disable local interrupt -> disable 
others cpu -> pm_power_off().

I don't understand why we cannot re-enable interrupts right before 
pm_power_off().
And it looks like that all pm_power_off callbacks which can sleep are 
broken.
I still wonder how i2c communication can works without local interrupts 
... it looks
like somebody is re-enabling them (or the code was never run)

> 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 ?

I don't think inventing a new locking mechanism is a good solution.
We need first to know for sure if we can sleep or not in pm_power_off.
If yes then we need to re-enable local interrupts and we can use a mutex.
If not then the atomic notifier is fine and a lots of drivers are wrong.

Thanks,

Philippe
--
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/