| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:09:18 +0530
From: "m.shams" <m.shams@...sung.com>
To: 'Uwe Kleine-König'
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: <thierry.reding@...il.com>, <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
<linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] pwm: removes period check from pwm_apply_state()
Hi Uwe,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Kleine-König [mailto:u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de]
> Sent: 10 August 2022 22:41
> To: m.shams <m.shams@...sung.com>
> Cc: thierry.reding@...il.com; lee.jones@...aro.org; linux-
> pwm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> alim.akhtar@...sung.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: removes period check from pwm_apply_state()
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 05:09:30PM +0530, m.shams wrote:
> > > I fixed up the quoting for you in this mail. Please fix your mailer
> > > to not
> > break
> > > quotes, this is quite annoying. (Looking at the headers of your mail
> > you're using
> > > Outlook. Then your only viable option is to switch to a saner
> > > client.)
> > >
> >
> > Sorry for the inconvenience. I have fixed my mailer.
>
> No you didn't.
>
> > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 07:47:03PM +0530, m.shams wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 03:41:25PM +0530, Tamseel Shams wrote:
> > > > > > There may be situation when PWM is exported using sysfs, but
> > > > > > at that point PWM period is not set. At this situation if we
> > > > > > issue a system suspend, it calls pwm_class_suspend which in
> > > > > > turn calls pwm_apply_state, where PWM period value is checked
> > > > > > which returns an invalid argument error casuing Kernel to
> > > > > > panic. So, check for PWM period value is removed so as to fix
> > > > > > the kernel panic observed during suspend.
> > > > >
> > > > > This looks and sounds wrong. One thing I would accept is:
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c index
> > > > > 0e042410f6b9..075bbcdad6c1 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> > > > > @@ -557,8 +557,8 @@ int pwm_apply_state(struct pwm_device
> *pwm,
> > > const struct pwm_state *state)
> > > > > */
> > > > > might_sleep();
> > > > >
> > > > > - if (!pwm || !state || !state->period ||
> > > > > - state->duty_cycle > state->period)
> > > > > + if (!pwm || !state || state->enabled && (!state->period ||
> > > > > + state->duty_cycle > state->period))
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > chip = pwm->chip;
> > > > >
> > > > > That is, don't refuse calling pwm_apply_state() for
> > > > > state->period =
> > > > > 0 and even state->duty_cycle > state->period if the > > PWM is
> > > > > not
> > enabled.
> > > >
> > > > By this do you mean doing it following way?
> > > >
> > > > if (!pwm || !state || (pwm && !state->period) ||
> > > > (pwm && state->duty_cycle > state->period))
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > No. Your expression is logically equivalent to what we already have.
> > > I
> > > meant:
> > >
> > > if (!pwm || !state || state->enabled && (!state->period ||
> > > state->duty_cycle > state->period))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > Learning to read diffs (maybe Outlook scrambled the view for you,
> > > too?) is
> > a
> > > nice capability you should master.
> > >
> > > > > But anyhow, even without that the kernel should not panic. So I
> > > > > ask you to research and provide some more info about > > the
> problem.
> > > > > (Which hardware does it affect? Where does it panic? ...)
> > > >
> > > > Observing Kernel panic in exynos SoC when we issue system suspend.
> > > > Following is the snippet of error:
> > > >
> > > > # echo mem > /sys/power/state
> > > > [ 29.224784] 010: Kernel panic - not syncing: pwm pwmchip0:
> > > > dpm_run_callback failure
> > > > [ 29.240134] 010: Call trace:
> > > > [ 29.242993] 010: dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1b8
> > > > [ 29.247067] 010: show_stack+0x24/0x30
> > > > [ 29.250793] 010: dump_stack+0xb8/0x114
> > > > [ 29.254606] 010: panic+0x180/0x398
> > > > [ 29.258073] 010: dpm_run_callback+0x270/0x278
> > > > [ 29.262493] 010: __device_suspend+0x15c/0x628
> > > > [ 29.266913] 010: dpm_suspend+0x124/0x3b0
> > > > [ 29.270899] 010: dpm_suspend_start+0xa0/0xa8
> > > > [ 29.275233] 010: suspend_devices_and_enter+0x110/0x968
> > > > [ 29.280433] 010: pm_suspend+0x308/0x3d8
> > > > [ 29.284333] 010: state_store+0x8c/0x110
> > > > [ 29.288233] 010: kobj_attr_store+0x14/0x28
> > > > [ 29.292393] 010: sysfs_kf_write+0x5c/0x78
> > > > [ 29.296466] 010: kernfs_fop_write+0x10c/0x220
> > > > [ 29.300886] 010: __vfs_write+0x48/0x90
> > > > [ 29.304699] 010: vfs_write+0xb8/0x1c0
> > > > [ 29.308426] 010: ksys_write+0x74/0x100
> > > > [ 29.312240] 010: __arm64_sys_write+0x24/0x30
> > > > [ 29.316573] 010: el0_svc_handler+0x110/0x1b8
> > > > [ 29.320906] 010: el0_svc+0x8/0x1bc
> > > > [ 29.324374] 010: SMP: stopping secondary CPUs
> > > > [ 29.328711] 010: Kernel Offset: disabled
> > > > [ 29.332607] 010: CPU features: 0x0002,00006008
> > > > [ 29.337026] 010: Memory Limit: none
> > > > [ 29.343949] 010: Rebooting in 1 seconds..
> > > > [ 30.344539] 010: Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
> > >
> > > Just locking at that and starring at drivers/base/power/main.c for a
> > > while doesn't make this clearer to me. Are you using a mainline
kernel?
> > > Which version?
> > >
> >
> > Looks like I had some local patch which was causing the error to
> > trigger Kernel Panic (sorry about that).
> > On removing those local changes, I do not observe kernel panic, but
> > observe following error and then suspend fails.
> >
> > [ 63.963063] pwm pwmchip0: PM: dpm_run_callback ():
> > pwm_class_suspend+0x0/0xf8 returns -22
> > [ 63.963079] pwm pwmchip0: PM: failed to suspend: error -22
> >
> > So, as to fix this issue I will post a new version of patch containing
> > change suggested by you.
>
> Note that my suggestion only covers you problem, it doesn't solve it.
>
Your suggestion looks like a permanent fix, as there should not be any use
case
where we check for "period" and "duty_cycle", without PWM being in enabled
state.
Thanks & Regards,
Tamseel Shams
Powered by blists - more mailing lists