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  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, 27 Oct 2016 13:53:03 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
Cc:     Alan Stern <>,
        Linux PM list <>,
        "" <>,
        Len Brown <>, Pavel Machek <>,
        Kevin Hilman <>,
        Lina Iyer <>,
        Jon Hunter <>,
        Marek Szyprowski <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Steve Glendinning <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: smsc911x: Synchronize the runtime PM status during
 system suspend

On 27 October 2016 at 13:41, Geert Uytterhoeven <> wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Ulf Hansson <> wrote:
>> The smsc911c driver puts its device into low power state when entering
>> system suspend. Although it doesn't update the device's runtime PM status
>> to RPM_SUSPENDED, which causes problems for a parent device.
>> In particular, when the runtime PM status of the parent is requested to be
>> updated to RPM_SUSPENDED, the runtime PM core prevent this, because it's
>> forbidden to runtime suspend a device, which has an active child.
>> Fix this by updating the runtime PM status of the smsc911x device to
>> RPM_SUSPENDED during system suspend. In system resume, let's reverse that
>> action by runtime resuming the device and thus also the parent.
> Thanks for your patch!
> The changelog sounds quite innocent, but this does fix a system crash
> during resume from s2ram.
>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <>
>> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <>
>> Cc: Steve Glendinning <>
>> Fixes: 8b1107b85efd ("PM / Runtime: Don't allow to suspend a device with an active child")
> While the abovementioned commit made the problem visible, the root cause
> was present before, right?


>> ---
>> Note that the commit this change fixes is currently queued for 4.10 via
>> Rafael's linux-pm tree. So this fix should go via that tree as well.
> Alternatively, this could go in in v4.9 to avoid the problem from ever
> appearing in upstream?

Makes perfect sense! In that case we should remove the fixes tag.

Rafael, can you pick this up for 4.9 rc[n]?

Kind regards

Powered by blists - more mailing lists