netdev - Re: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:155 inet_sock

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:	Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:55:09 -0700
From:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:	Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>, linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>
Subject: Re: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at net/ipv4/af_inet.c:155
 inet_sock_destruct+0x1c4/0x1dc

On 07/05/2016 02:51 PM, Mason wrote:
>>> Therefore, loss of context cannot possibly explain the
>>> warning I am seeing.
>>
>> No, but if you go all the way down to trying to suspend and the last
>> step is the firmware failing, anything you have suspended needs to be
>> unwinded, for your ethernet driver that means that you went through a
>> successful suspend then resume cycle even if it failed down later when
>> the platform attempted to suspend.
> 
> So it is the driver's responsibility to "shut down" on resume?

It is the driver responsibility to know how to suspend and resume a
device it manages, and it does that by implementing appropriate
suspend/resume callbacks.

> (I had the vague impression that the suspend framework would
> "disable" the device through the appropriate callback.)

The suspend framework knows which drivers implement suspend/resume and
calls them appropriately (based on parenting/bus hierarchy), but it
won't automatigally do anything because there is no such thing as magic
when it comes to suspending hardware, this needs to be a controlled
sequence.
-- 
Florian