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]
Date:	Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:01:19 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Nitish Ambastha <nits.ambastha@...il.com>
Cc:	Nitish Ambastha <nitish.a@...sung.com>, pavel@....cz,
	len.brown@...el.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpgs@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] kernel/power/autosleep.c: check for pm_suspend() return before queueing suspend again

On Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:52:43 AM Nitish Ambastha wrote:
> Hi Rafael
> 
> Thanks for your feedback
> 
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 29, 2015 09:56:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:24:14 AM Nitish Ambastha wrote:
> >> > Prevent tight loop for suspend-resume when some
> >> > devices failed to suspend
> >> > If some devices failed to suspend, we monitor this
> >> > error in try_to_suspend(). pm_suspend() is already
> >> > an 'int' returning function, how about checking return
> >> > from pm_suspend() before queueing suspend again?
> >> >
> >> > For devices which do not register for pending events,
> >> > this will prevent tight loop for suspend-resume in
> >> > suspend abort scenarios due to device suspend failures
> >
> > Having said the below I'm not sure why the current code doesn't cover this
> > for you?
> >
> > That would be the final_count == initial_count case, no?
> >
> Agree, this should cover most of the cases, however there are some
> cases where final_count may not match initial_count here
> 
> A couple of such scenario I came across is
> 1) when tasks are restarted again due to suspend failure, sometimes
> battery kernel thread acquires lock for battery monitoring resulting
> in either pm_get_wakeup_count() returning false or increment in
> final_count from initial_count

Locks should not have any effect on the return value of pm_get_wakeup_count()
and if false is returned by it, a wakeup event was being processed when it
was called.

In turn, if pm_get_wakeup_count() returns false or final_count != initial_count,
this means that *somebody* called pm_wakeup_event() or equivalent in the meantime
and there *was* a valid wakeup event (regardless of or in addition to the driver
error).

> 2) In some platforms, power transitions are carried from User space
> (power manager), these power-manager tries to hold some wake lock
> after being restarted on resume

And what exactly is the failing scenario in that case?


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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