linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: Use SYSTEM_OFF2 PSCI call to power off for hibernate

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: <ZfB7c9ifUiZR6gy1@bogus>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:57:39 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
	Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: Use SYSTEM_OFF2 PSCI call to power off
 for hibernate

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 01:51:29PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
> 
> The PSCI v1.3 specification (alpha) adds support for a SYSTEM_OFF2
> function which is analogous to ACPI S4 state. This will allow hosting
> environments to determine that a guest is hibernated rather than just
> powered off, and handle that state appropriately on subsequent launches.
> 
> Since commit 60c0d45a7f7a ("efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset and
> poweroff") the EFI shutdown method is deliberately preferred over PSCI
> or other methods. So register a SYS_OFF_MODE_POWER_OFF handler which
> *only* handles the hibernation, leaving the original PSCI SYSTEM_OFF as
> a last resort via the legacy pm_power_off function pointer.
> 
> The hibernation code already exports a system_entering_hibernation()
> function which is be used by the higher-priority handler to check for
> hibernation. That existing function just returns the value of a static
> boolean variable from hibernate.c, which was previously only set in the
> hibernation_platform_enter() code path. Set the same flag in the simpler
> code path around the call to kernel_power_off() too.
> 
> An alternative way to hook SYSTEM_OFF2 into the hibernation code would
> be to register a platform_hibernation_ops structure with an ->enter()
> method which makes the new SYSTEM_OFF2 call. But that would have the
> unwanted side-effect of making hibernation take a completely different
> code path in hibernation_platform_enter(), invoking a lot of special dpm
> callbacks.
> 
> Another option might be to add a new SYS_OFF_MODE_HIBERNATE mode, with
> fallback to SYS_OFF_MODE_POWER_OFF. Or to use the sys_off_data to
> indicate whether the power off is for hibernation.
> 
> But this version works and is relatively simple.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/power/hibernate.c     |  5 ++++-
>  2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> index d9629ff87861..69d2f6969438 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct psci_0_1_function_ids get_psci_0_1_function_ids(void)
>  
>  static u32 psci_cpu_suspend_feature;
>  static bool psci_system_reset2_supported;
> +static bool psci_system_off2_supported;
>  
>  static inline bool psci_has_ext_power_state(void)
>  {
> @@ -333,6 +334,28 @@ static void psci_sys_poweroff(void)
>  	invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_0_2_FN_SYSTEM_OFF, 0, 0, 0);
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATION
> +static int psci_sys_hibernate(struct sys_off_data *data)
> +{
> +	if (system_entering_hibernation())
> +		invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_FN_NATIVE(1_3, SYSTEM_OFF2),
> +			       PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_OFF, 0, 0);
> +	return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init psci_hibernate_init(void)
> +{
> +	if (psci_system_off2_supported) {
> +		/* Higher priority than EFI shutdown, but only for hibernate */
> +		register_sys_off_handler(SYS_OFF_MODE_POWER_OFF,
> +					 SYS_OFF_PRIO_FIRMWARE + 2,
> +					 psci_sys_hibernate, NULL);
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +subsys_initcall(psci_hibernate_init);

Looked briefly at register_sys_off_handler and it should be OK to call
it from psci_init_system_off2() below. Any particular reason for having
separate initcall to do this ? We can even eliminate the need for
psci_init_system_off2 if it can be called from there. What am I missing ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep