linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Add post-init-providers binding to improve suspend/resume stability

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]

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 16:02:47 -0800
From: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, 
	Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>, Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Add post-init-providers binding to improve
 suspend/resume stability

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 5:34 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:30:20PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > This patch series adds a "post-init-providers" device tree binding that
> > can be used to break dependency cycles in device tree and enforce a more
> > determinstic probe/suspend/resume order. This will also improve the
> > stability of global async probing and async suspend/resume and allow us
> > to enable them more easily. Yet another step away from playing initcall
> > chicken with probing and step towards fully async probing and
> > suspend/resume.
>
> Do you know what is the state of affairs in ACPI? Is there any (similar)
> issue even possible?

I'm not very familiar with ACPI, but I wouldn't be surprised if ACPI
devices have cyclic dependencies. But then ACPI on a PC doesn't
typically have as many devices/drivers and ACPI might be hiding the
dependencies from the kernel. So maybe the possibility of a cycle
visible to the kernel might be low.

I would really like to see fw_devlink extended to ACPI (it's written
in a way to make that possible), but don't have enough knowledge to do
it.

-Saravana