linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/11] mmc: core: Fixup processing of SDIO IRQs during system suspend/resume

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: <CAPDyKFrTUgkxdwuFHy=2zDyrNnoi6UVnXEUL-cfrtUigvBunNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:42:25 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
        Yong Mao <yong.mao@...iatek.com>,
        Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@...iatek.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] mmc: core: Fixup processing of SDIO IRQs during
 system suspend/resume

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 01:48, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 7:22 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > System suspend/resume of SDIO cards, with SDIO IRQs enabled and when using
> > MMC_CAP2_SDIO_IRQ_NOTHREAD is unfortunate still suffering from a fragile
> > behaviour. Some problems have been taken care of so far, but more issues
> > remains.
> >
> > For example, calling the ->ack_sdio_irq() callback to let host drivers
> > re-enable the SDIO IRQs is a bad idea, unless the IRQ have been consumed,
> > which may not be the case during system suspend/resume. This may lead to
> > that a host driver re-signals the same SDIO IRQ over and over again,
> > causing a storm of IRQs and gives a ping-pong effect towards the
> > sdio_irq_work().
> >
> > Moreover, calling the ->enable_sdio_irq() callback at system resume to
> > re-enable already enabled SDIO IRQs for the host, causes the runtime PM
> > count for some host drivers to become in-balanced. This then leads to the
> > host to remain runtime resumed, no matter if it's needed or not.
> >
> > To fix these problems, let's check if process_sdio_pending_irqs() actually
> > consumed the SDIO IRQ, before we continue to ack the IRQ by invoking the
> > ->ack_sdio_irq() callback.
> >
> > Additionally, there should be no need to re-enable SDIO IRQs as the host
> > driver already knows if they were enabled at system suspend, thus also
> > whether it needs to re-enable them at system resume. For this reason, drop
> > the call to ->enable_sdio_irq() during system resume.
> >
> > In regards to these changes there is yet another issue, which is when there
> > is an SDIO IRQ being signaled by the host driver, but after the SDIO card
> > has been system suspended. Currently these IRQs are just thrown away, while
> > we should at least make sure to try to consume them when the SDIO card has
> > been system resumed. Fix this by calling sdio_signal_irq() after system
> > resumed the SDIO card.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c     | 2 +-
> >  drivers/mmc/core/sdio_irq.c | 3 ++-
> >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c b/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
> > index c557f1519b77..3114d496495a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c
> > @@ -1015,7 +1015,7 @@ static int mmc_sdio_resume(struct mmc_host *host)
> >                 if (!(host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_SDIO_IRQ_NOTHREAD))
> >                         wake_up_process(host->sdio_irq_thread);
> >                 else if (host->caps & MMC_CAP_SDIO_IRQ)
> > -                       host->ops->enable_sdio_irq(host, 1);
> > +                       sdio_signal_irq(host);
>
> Is this always safe?  On 1-function cards you won't poll CCCR_INTx so
> you'll always signal an interrupt at resume time, won't you?

Good point!

What we really want to do is to just schedule the work and not include
to set the sdio_irq_pending flag. Actually, the flag may have been
set, in case a host driver have called sdio_signal_irq() when the SDIO
card was suspended - but that is the intention.

Thanks for pointing out the issue, I will re-spin and fix it!

Kind regards
Uffe