linux-kernel - Re: kernel 5.2+: suspend freeze in VMware Player.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:48:37 -0500
From:   Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel 5.2+: suspend freeze in VMware Player.

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, November 23, 2019 11:51:19 PM CET Woody Suwalski wrote:
>> Rafael, Thomas, this is the same VMware Player 15.2 freeze on suspend issue
>> I have been discussing with you in August.
>>
>> It has surfaced after Thomas Gleixner's change in kernel 5.2
>> dfe0cf8b  x86/ioapic: Implement irq_get irqchip_state() callback
>>
>> It is still with us in 5.4, 100% repeatable on a second suspend after a
>> reboot.
>>
>> I have traced it down to the ioapic_irq_get_chip_state() function, where
>> rentry.rr is stuck hi.
>>
>> On the first suspend I can see that for IRQ9 the test exits with irr=0,
>> trigger=1, but on second and consecutive suspends it is returning
>> irr=1 trigger=1, so *state=1, and this results in a never-ending loop
>> in __synchronize_hardirq(), because inprogress is always 1.
>>
>> I have been usig a "fix" to timeout in __synchronize_hardirq() after
>> 64 iterations, and that seems to work OK (no side-effects noticed),
>> but of course is not addressing the underlying problem.
>>
>> And the problem may be somewhere in VMware emulation code, returning bad
>> data?
>>
>> Would you have ideas as to what should be the right setting for
>> IRQ9 in VM environment?  Edge or level?
>> And which part of code is reading the "hardware" state from VMware?
>>
>> OTOH, current implementation is not really safe, as the wait loop should
> It is not clear to me the current implementation of what exactly you mean here.
Sorry, by implementation I have meant the source code of a never-ending 
loop where suspend may be indefinitely blocked by a flaky hardware bit. 
The result is a frozen VM. (check kernel/irq/manage.c line 73 on version 
5.4)
>> have a timeout, or else it may get stuck. Should I provide my safety-exit patch?
> Thanks!
>
>
>