linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] PM: sleep: core: Clear device async state upfront during suspend

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: <CAB8ipk8jYoqP_JF2sP4jvvW=s0cMA7GUOg00XoMeDQ4p9PEtnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 20:14:05 +0800
From: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, 
	Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PM: sleep: core: Clear device async state upfront
 during suspend

On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 8:11 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 3:57 AM Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 4:38 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > >
> > > In all of the system suspend transition phases, async state of all
> > > devices needs to be cleared before starting async processing for any of
> > > them because the latter may race with power.work_in_progress updates for
> > > the device's parent or suppliers and if it touches bit fields from the
> > > same group (for example, power.must_resume or power.wakeup_path), bit
> > > field corruption is possible.
> > >
> > > Rearrange the code accordingly.
> >
> > Could we use the following patch:
>
> Yes, we can make this change.
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pm.h b/include/linux/pm.h
> > index 98a899858ece..afcaaa37a812 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pm.h
> > @@ -681,10 +681,10 @@ struct dev_pm_info {
> >         struct list_head        entry;
> >         struct completion       completion;
> >         struct wakeup_source    *wakeup;
> > +       bool                    work_in_progress;       /* Owned by
> > the PM core */
> >         bool                    wakeup_path:1;
> >         bool                    syscore:1;
> >         bool                    no_pm_callbacks:1;      /* Owned by
> > the PM core */
> > -       bool                    work_in_progress:1;     /* Owned by
> > the PM core */
> >         bool                    smart_suspend:1;        /* Owned by
> > the PM core */
> >         bool                    must_resume:1;          /* Owned by
> > the PM core */
> >         bool                    may_skip_resume:1;      /* Set by subsystems */
> >
> > Due to byte alignment, the size of struct dev_pm_info remains unchanged,
>
> I had considered making it, but I thought it would cause struct
> dev_pm_info to grow.
>
> > while also preventing concurrency issues between work_in_progress and
> > other variables. Additionally, with this modification, there’s no need to traverse the
> > device list twice.
>
> Sure.
>
> I'll just commit the above change with your sign-off, please let me
> know if there are any issues with that.

I have no other questions.

Thanks!

BR
--
xuewen