linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] driver core: Fix suspend/resume order issue with deferred probe

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: <20200630153850.GE1785141@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:38:50 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] driver core: Fix suspend/resume order issue with
 deferred probe

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 03:50:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:53 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Saravana,
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:34 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 4:27 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:52 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:47 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > Note that deferred probing gets in the way here and so the problem is
> > > > > > related to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean, we officially support deferred probing. Shouldn't we fix it so
> > > > > that it doesn't break suspend/resume?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we should fix deferred probing.
> >
> > Please take into account that breakage is an actual regression.
> >
> > > > > Also, it's pretty easy to have
> > > > > cases where one module probes multiple device instances and loading it
> > > > > in one order would break dpm_list order for one device and loading it
> > > > > in another order would break it for another device. And there would be
> > > > > no "proper" order to load modules (because module order != device
> > > > > order).
> > > >
> > > > I'm not saying that the current code is perfect.  I'm saying that the
> > > > fix as proposed adds too much cost for everybody who may not care IMO.
> > >
> > > Ok, how about I don't do this reordering until we see the first
> > > deferred probe request? Will that work for you? In that case, systems
> > > with no deferred probing will not incur any reordering cost. Or if
> > > reordering starts only towards the end, all the previous probes won't
> > > incur reordering cost.
> >
> > That first deferred probe request is more or less as of the first probe,
> > since commit 93d2e4322aa74c1a ("of: platform: Batch fwnode parsing when
> > adding all top level devices"), at least on DT systems.
> 
> The deferred probe reordering of devices to the end of dpm_list
> started in 2012, so it is nothing new, and it demonstrably works for
> devices where the dependencies are known to the driver core.
> 
> That said, in the cases when the dependencies are known to the driver
> core, it is also unnecessary to reorder dpm_list in
> deferred_probe_work_func(), because the right ordering of it is going
> to be determined elsewhere.
> 
> Also commit 494fd7b7ad10 ("PM / core: fix deferred probe breaking
> suspend resume order") is not the source of the problem here, because
> the problem would have still been there without it, due to the
> device_pm_move_last() that was there before, so the Fixes: tag
> pointing to that commit is misleading.
> 
> Now, because 716a7a259690 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Add support for
> batching fwnode parsing") is an optimization and the regression is
> present because of it AFAICS, the best way to address it at that point
> would be to revert commit 716a7a259690 for 5.8 and maybe do the
> optimization more carefully.
> 
> Greg, what do you think?

I've been ignoreing this and letting you all sort it out :)

But if you think that patch should be reverted, I'll not object and will
be glad to to it if this solves the issue.

thanks,

greg k-h