linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/12] PCI: aardvark: add suspend to RAM support

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: <20181213153000.245d7d5f@xps13>
Date:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:30:00 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, sudeep.holla@....com,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
        Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
        Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] PCI: aardvark: add suspend to RAM support

Hi Lorenzo,

> > If that's really the case, then I can see how one device and it's
> > children are suspended and the irq for it is disabled but the providing
> > devices (clk, regulator, bus controller, etc.) are still fully active
> > and not suspended but in fact completely usable and able to service
> > interrupts. If that all makes sense, then I would answer the question
> > with a definitive "yes it's all fine" because the clk consumer could be
> > in the NOIRQ phase of its suspend but the clk provider wouldn't have
> > even started suspending yet when clk_disable_unprepare() is called.  
> 
> That's a very good summary and address my concern, I still question this
> patch correctness (and many others that carry out clk operations in S2R
> NOIRQ phase), they may work but do not tell me they are rock solid given
> your accurate summary above.

I understand your concern but I don't see any alternative right now
and a deep rework of the PM core to respect such dependency is not
something that can be done in a reasonable amount of time. With
regard to this constraint, do you think it is worth blocking the
series?


Thanks,
Miquèl