linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI/PCI: PM: Add missing wakeup.flags.valid checks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1872097.3m3ZAFDl4C@kreacher>
Date:   Mon, 27 May 2019 13:01:45 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI/PCI: PM: Add missing wakeup.flags.valid checks

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 12:42:20 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> Both acpi_pci_need_resume() and acpi_dev_needs_resume() check if the
> current ACPI wakeup configuration of the device matches what is
> expected as far as system wakeup from sleep states is concerned, as
> reflected by the device_may_wakeup() return value for the device.
> 
> However, they only should do that if wakeup.flags.valid is set for
> the device's ACPI companion, because otherwise the wakeup.prepare_count
> value for it is meaningless.
> 
> Add the missing wakeup.flags.valid checks to these functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/device_pm.c |    4 ++--
>  drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c   |    3 ++-
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/pci/pci-acpi.c
> @@ -666,7 +666,8 @@ static bool acpi_pci_need_resume(struct
>  	if (!adev || !acpi_device_power_manageable(adev))
>  		return false;
>  
> -	if (device_may_wakeup(&dev->dev) != !!adev->wakeup.prepare_count)
> +	if (adev->wakeup.flags.valid &&
> +	    device_may_wakeup(&dev->dev) != !!adev->wakeup.prepare_count)
>  		return true;
>  
>  	if (acpi_target_system_state() == ACPI_STATE_S0)
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/device_pm.c
> @@ -952,8 +952,8 @@ static bool acpi_dev_needs_resume(struct
>  	u32 sys_target = acpi_target_system_state();
>  	int ret, state;
>  
> -	if (!pm_runtime_suspended(dev) || !adev ||
> -	    device_may_wakeup(dev) != !!adev->wakeup.prepare_count)
> +	if (!pm_runtime_suspended(dev) || !adev || (adev->wakeup.flags.valid &&
> +	    device_may_wakeup(dev) != !!adev->wakeup.prepare_count))
>  		return true;
>  
>  	if (sys_target == ACPI_STATE_S0)

Bjorn, I've assumed no concerns or objections from you regarding this one and
queued this up.

If that assumption is incorrect, please let me know.