linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: cpuidle: implement cpuidle_state.enter

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: <CAAObsKATZy9+Tn0pJcDCaNzpxLX6GqX0TO_t7w8tgirWQgJF9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 17:02:53 +0200
From:	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
To:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: cpuidle: implement cpuidle_state.enter_freeze()

On 17 April 2015 at 16:08, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 03:37:19PM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >> I don't know what FIQs are. :-)
>> >
>> > In short, fast IRQs, it is a separate IRQ line handled as a separate
>> > exception source with some private (banked) registers that minimize registers
>> > saving/restoring. They are not identical to NMI on x86, since
>> > their behaviour (handling) may be overriden by platforms and they
>> > can be masked.
>> >
>> >> ->enter_freeze is entered with interrupts disabled on the local CPU.  It is
>> >> not supposed to re-enable them.  That is, while in the ->enter_freeze callback
>> >> routine, the CPU must not be interrupted aby anything other than NMI.
>> >
>> > It boils down to what FIQs handlers are allowed to do with tick frozen
>> > and what they are (may be) currently used for.
>> >
>> > Russell has more insights on this than I do, in particular what FIQs are
>> > currently used for on ARM and if we can leave them enabled safely with tick
>> > frozen.
>>
>> But even if it's currently safe to leave them enabled, is there any
>> reason for not disabling them?
>
> Ok, the point here is: either it is safe, and you leave them enabled,
> or it is not and we must disable them *before* enter_freeze() is entered.
>
> Disabling them in the platform enter_freeze() hook does not make sense,
> because this means we run with FIQs enabled with tick frozen, either
> it is safe or it is not, it can't be both.

Sure, that's why I proposed doing it in arch_cpu_idle_enter/exit.

> I would ask Russell opinion on this, before making any decision.

Sure, that would be very welcome.

Regards,

Tomeu

> Lorenzo
> --
> 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/
--
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/