[PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

[PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

[Li, Aubrey]

Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
pm_power_off function hooked.

Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/sleep.c |    7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
index b718806..0284d22 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
@@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
 	status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b);
 	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
 		sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
-		pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
-		pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
+		if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
+			acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
+			pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
+			pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
+		}
 	}

 	supported[0] = 0;
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
> pm_power_off function hooked.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |    7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> index b718806..0284d22 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>  	status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b);
>  	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
>  		sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;

Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?

> -		pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> -		pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> +		if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
> +			acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
> +			pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> +			pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> +		}
>  	}
> 
>  	supported[0] = 0;
> 

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

[Li, Aubrey]

On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
>> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
>> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
>> pm_power_off function hooked.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |    7 +++++--
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>> index b718806..0284d22 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>>  	status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b);
>>  	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
>>  		sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
> 
> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?

We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object

Thanks,
-Aubrey

> 
>> -		pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>> -		pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>> +		if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
>> +			acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
>> +			pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>> +			pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>> +		}
>>  	}
>>
>>  	supported[0] = 0;
>>
> 

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

[Li, Aubrey]

On 2014/2/28 13:33, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
>>> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
>>> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
>>> pm_power_off function hooked.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |    7 +++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>>> index b718806..0284d22 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
>>> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>>>  	status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b);
>>>  	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
>>>  		sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
>>
>> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
> 
> We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object

Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?

Thanks,
-Aubrey
> 
>>
>>> -		pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>>> -		pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>>> +		if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
>>> +			acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
>>> +			pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>>> +			pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
>>> +		}
>>>  	}
>>>
>>>  	supported[0] = 0;
>>>
>>
> 

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2014/2/28 13:33, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > On 2014/2/27 7:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:46:37 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>> Sleep control and status registers need santity check before ACPI
> >>> install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
> >>> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
> >>> pm_power_off function hooked.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |    7 +++++--
> >>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> >>> index b718806..0284d22 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> >>> @@ -809,8 +809,11 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
> >>>  	status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b);
> >>>  	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> >>>  		sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
> >>
> >> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
> > 
> > We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
> 
> Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?

Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is "supported" if we aren't
going to do anything with it.


> >>
> >>> -		pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> >>> -		pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> >>> +		if (acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
> >>> +			acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
> >>> +			pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
> >>> +			pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> >>> +		}
> >>>  	}
> >>>
> >>>  	supported[0] = 0;
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

[Li, Aubrey]

On 2014/3/2 8:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
>>>
>>> We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
>>
>> Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?
> 
> Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is "supported" if we aren't
> going to do anything with it.
> 

Make sense to me. Patch refined as below:

Sleep control and status registers need santity check as well before
ACPI install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
pm_power_off function hooked.

Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>

---
 drivers/acpi/sleep.c |    7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
index b718806..0abfbb1 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
@@ -807,7 +807,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
 	acpi_sleep_hibernate_setup();

 	status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b);
-	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
+	/*
+	 * Check both ACPI S5 object and ACPI sleep registers to
+	 * install pm_power_off_prepare/pm_power_off hook
+	 */
+	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
+		acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
 		sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
 		pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
 		pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
-- 1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH] ACPI/Sleep: pm_power_off need more sanity check to be installed

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sunday, March 02, 2014 08:53:57 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2014/3/2 8:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 01, 2014 06:24:23 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>>> Do we still want to set this if the check below fails?  If so, then why?
> >>>
> >>> We know \_S5_ is valid. The fault is sleep registers, not S5 ACPI object
> >>
> >> Hi Rafael, do you still have any concern?
> > 
> > Well, I simply don't think we should say that it is "supported" if we aren't
> > going to do anything with it.
> > 
> 
> Make sense to me. Patch refined as below:
> 
> Sleep control and status registers need santity check as well before
> ACPI install acpi_power_off to pm_power_off hook. The checking code in
> acpi_enter_sleep_state() is too late, we should not allow a not-working
> pm_power_off function hooked.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>

Queued up for 3.15 (with minor changes), thanks!

> 
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/sleep.c |    7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> index b718806..0abfbb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep.c
> @@ -807,7 +807,12 @@ int __init acpi_sleep_init(void)
>  	acpi_sleep_hibernate_setup();
> 
>  	status = acpi_get_sleep_type_data(ACPI_STATE_S5, &type_a, &type_b);
> -	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status)) {
> +	/*
> +	 * Check both ACPI S5 object and ACPI sleep registers to
> +	 * install pm_power_off_prepare/pm_power_off hook
> +	 */
> +	if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_control.address &&
> +		acpi_gbl_FADT.sleep_status.address) {
>  		sleep_states[ACPI_STATE_S5] = 1;
>  		pm_power_off_prepare = acpi_power_off_prepare;
>  		pm_power_off = acpi_power_off;
> -- 1.7.10.4
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.