linux-kernel - Re: Linux 4.15-rc2: Regression in resume from ACPI S3

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:   Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:26:32 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...ankhorst.nl>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 4.15-rc2: Regression in resume from ACPI S3

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 7:19:17 PM CET Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Definitely. That was fragile forever but puzzles me is that I can't figure
>> > > out what now causes that spurious interrupt to surface out of the blue.
>> >
>> > Perhaps just timing?
>>
>> That's what I'm trying to figure out right now, because that is the only
>> sensible explanation left. The whole machinery of suspend is exactly the
>> same with and without the vector changes. I instrumented all functions
>> involved and the picture is the same. I even do not see any fundamental
>> timing differences where one would say: That's it.
>>
>> What puzzles me even more is that in the range of commits I'm fiddling with
>> there is no other change than the vector management stuff and the point
>> where it breaks makes no sense at all. The point Maarten bisected it to
>> works nicely here, so that might just point to a very subtle timing issue.
>>
>> > How hard would it be to change the ordering to just redirect irqs first?
>>
>> The whole interrupt redirection happens when the non boot CPUs are brought
>> down, which is the very last step before the actual suspend happens.
>>
>> We could probably do that earlier, but that's something Rafael needs to
>> answer ultimately.
>
> Well, that's both flattering and concerning. ;-)
>
> Anyway, yes, we can do that earlier AFAICS.  Action handlers are not going to
> run after we've called suspend_device_irqs() which happens before the final
> stage of PCI devices suspend (suspend_noirq) and it doesn't matter which CPU
> gets the interrupt from that point on (it is either wakeup or unwanted then).

There is a catch that we don't and likely should not do that for
suspend-to-idle, but since we have pm_suspend_target_state now, that
case can be distinguished from the "full suspend" one readily.

Thanks,
Rafael