linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

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: <20160328185633.GD26086@dvhart-mobl5.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:56:33 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:	Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@...il.com>
Cc:	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
	"D. Jared Dominguez" <Jared_Dominguez@...l.com>,
	"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
	<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alex Hung <alex.hung@...onical.com>,
	Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is
 suspended

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:58:09PM +0200, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> 2016-03-28 19:33 GMT+02:00 Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:24:56PM +0100, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> >> 2016-03-24 10:39 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>:
> >> > On Monday 21 March 2016 16:13:34 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> >> >> 2016-03-21 13:17 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>:
> >> >> > On Friday 18 March 2016 23:44:23 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> >> >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> >> >> +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context)
> >> >> >> +{
> >> >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +     rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> >> >> >> +}
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >> >> >> +{
> >> >> >> +     struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> >> >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +     rbtn_data->suspended = true;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +     return 0;
> >> >> >> +}
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
> >> >> >> +{
> >> >> >> +     struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> >> >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >> >> >> +     acpi_status status;
> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> +     /*
> >> >> >> +      * Clear the flag only after we received the extra
> >> >> >> +      * ACPI notification.
> >> >> >> +      */
> >> >> >> +     status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
> >> >> >> +                      rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data);
> >> >> >> +     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >> >> >> +             rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I case when acpi_os_execute success it calls rbtn_acpi_clear_flag,
> >> >> > right? And that will set suspended to false. When acpi_os_execute fails,
> >> >> > then it set suspended too to false... Then whole acpi_os_execute doing
> >> >> > just "barrier" after which suspended flag can be set to false. So I
> >> >> > think rbtn_acpi_clear_flag function is not needed here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cannot you pass NULL or empty function pointer as callback? Or what was
> >> >> > reason to do that flag clearing at "two places"?
> >> >>
> >> >> acpi_os_execute doesn't wait for the callback to be executed, so
> >> >> I can't clear the flag from rbtn_resume.
> >> >
> >> > acpi_os_execute calls callback asynchronously later? Or what exactly do it?
> >>
> >> In this case, it adds the callback to the kacpi_notify_wq workqueue
> >> for deferred execution.
> >
> > +Rafael for context/advice on the use of acpi_os_execute here.
> >
> > This is true, but a quick scan through that call path doesn't tell me why we
> > would need to call it here instead of just setting rbtn_data->suspended = false.
> > The comment suggests waiting for the event, but is that what this is doing? It
> > appears to me to be immediately scheduling the function to a work queue, not
> > waiting for the event notifier.
> >
> > Also, since there is no indication to the user that a failure occurs, this
> > function is basically equivalent in the success and failure case (the success
> > case is just slower).
> >
> > Am I missing something critical here?
> 
> Maybe saying that we are waiting for the extra event is not really
> correct. Since the extra ACPI notification is processed by means
> of kacpi_notify_wq, or at least that's my understanding, our callback
> is likely going to be executed after we received the extra ACPI
> notification. This was suggested by Rafael [2].

I see, the workqueue is run after the event is issued. If that's the case, how
are we ensured that it will get cleared? Isn't it only some systems that have
this problem?

What happens to the systems that do not send this event at resume? Does the
suspended flag remain set?

> 
> The problem with setting the flag directly from the resume callback
> is that the extra notification might arrive after we cleared the
> flag, causing spurious input events [1].
> 
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/8001
> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/8201
> 
> >
> >>
> >> > --
> >> > Pali Rohár
> >> > pali.rohar@...il.com
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Darren Hart
> > Intel Open Source Technology Center
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center