linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Don't assume clock runs in suspend

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, 20 Sep 2016 08:47:07 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        wxt@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Don't assume clock runs in
 suspend

On 20/09/16 00:14, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:06:55AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Thanks for the quick response.
> 
>> On 16/09/16 06:49, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> Since commit 4fbcdc813fb9 ("clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Use clocksource
>>> for suspend timekeeping"), this driver assumes that the ARM architected
>>> timer keeps running in suspend. This is not the case for some ARM SoCs,
>>> depending on the HW state used for system suspend. Let's not assume that
>>> all SoCs support this, and instead only support this if the device tree
>>> explicitly tells us it's "always on". In all other cases, just fall back
>>> to the RTC. This should be relatively harmless.
>>
>> I'm afraid you're confusing two things:
>> - the counter, which *must* carry on counting no matter what, as
>> (quoting the ARM ARM) "The system counter must be implemented in an
>> always-on power domain"
>> - the timer, which is allowed to be powered off, and can be tagged with
>> the "always-on" property to indicate that it is guaranteed to stay up
>> (which in practice only exists in virtual machines and never on real HW).
> 
> Indeed, sorry for that confusion, and thanks for the explanations.
> 
>> If your counter does stop counting when suspended, then this is starting
>> to either feel like a HW bug, or someone is killing the clock that feeds
>> this counter when entering suspend.
>>
>> If this is the former, then we need a separate quirk to indicate the
>> non-standard behaviour. If it is the latter, don't do it! ;-)
> 
> It's beginning to seem more like a HW quirk which yields nonstandard
> behavior. AIUI, this SoC normally runs the counter off its 24 MHz clock,
> but for low power modes, this "always-on" domain switches over to a 32
> KHz alternative clock. Unfortunately, the counter doesn't actually tick
> when run this way. I'm trying to confirm with the chip designers
> (Rockchip, RK3399) about the nature of the quirk, but I think we'll need
> a separate DT flag for this behavior.

The counter is allowed to be clocked at a different rate, as long as it
is incremented by the frequency ratio on each tick of the new frequency.
In your case, the counter should increment by 750 on each tick of the
32kHz clock. If the rk3399 implementation doesn't do this, then this is
a bug, and we need a quirk to work around it.

Note that such a quirk will have some other impacts, such as the
gettimeofday implementation in the VDSO (which relies on the counter
making forward progress). There could be other issues in the timer
subsystem as well... This doesn't look like a pleasant thing to fix.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...