From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
During resume from system suspend the 'data' field of
struct pnp_dev in pnpacpi_set_resources() may be a stale pointer,
due to removal of the associated ACPI device node object in the
previous suspend-resume cycle. This happens, for example, if a
dockable machine is booted in the docking station and then suspended
and resumed and suspended again. If that happens,
pnpacpi_build_resource_template() called from pnpacpi_set_resources()
attempts to use that pointer and crashes.
However, pnpacpi_set_resources() actually checks the device's ACPI
handle, attempts to find the ACPI device node object attached to it
and returns an error code if that fails, so in fact it knows what the
correct value of dev->data should be. Use this observation to update
dev->data with the correct value if necessary and dump a call trace
if that's the case (once).
We still need to fix the root cause of this issue, but preventing
systems from crashing because of it is an improvement too.
Reported-and-tested-by: Zdenek Kabelac <[email protected]>
References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
---
drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c | 3 +++
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
+++ linux/drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.c
@@ -95,6 +95,9 @@ static int pnpacpi_set_resources(struct
return -ENODEV;
}
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(acpi_dev != dev->data))
+ dev->data = acpi_dev;
+
ret = pnpacpi_build_resource_template(dev, &buffer);
if (ret)
return ret;
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
>
> During resume from system suspend the 'data' field of
> struct pnp_dev in pnpacpi_set_resources() may be a stale pointer,
> due to removal of the associated ACPI device node object in the
> previous suspend-resume cycle. This happens, for example, if a
> dockable machine is booted in the docking station and then suspended
> and resumed and suspended again. If that happens,
> pnpacpi_build_resource_template() called from pnpacpi_set_resources()
> attempts to use that pointer and crashes.
>
> However, pnpacpi_set_resources() actually checks the device's ACPI
> handle, attempts to find the ACPI device node object attached to it
> and returns an error code if that fails, so in fact it knows what the
> correct value of dev->data should be. Use this observation to update
> dev->data with the correct value if necessary and dump a call trace
> if that's the case (once).
>
> We still need to fix the root cause of this issue, but preventing
> systems from crashing because of it is an improvement too.
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Zdenek Kabelac <[email protected]>
> References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
Any reason why this shouldn't go into stable releases?
-- Shuah
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 04:25:20 PM Shuah Khan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
> >
> > During resume from system suspend the 'data' field of
> > struct pnp_dev in pnpacpi_set_resources() may be a stale pointer,
> > due to removal of the associated ACPI device node object in the
> > previous suspend-resume cycle. This happens, for example, if a
> > dockable machine is booted in the docking station and then suspended
> > and resumed and suspended again. If that happens,
> > pnpacpi_build_resource_template() called from pnpacpi_set_resources()
> > attempts to use that pointer and crashes.
> >
> > However, pnpacpi_set_resources() actually checks the device's ACPI
> > handle, attempts to find the ACPI device node object attached to it
> > and returns an error code if that fails, so in fact it knows what the
> > correct value of dev->data should be. Use this observation to update
> > dev->data with the correct value if necessary and dump a call trace
> > if that's the case (once).
> >
> > We still need to fix the root cause of this issue, but preventing
> > systems from crashing because of it is an improvement too.
> >
> > Reported-and-tested-by: Zdenek Kabelac <[email protected]>
> > References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
>
> Any reason why this shouldn't go into stable releases?
Yes, it can go to -stable. This is just a patch, not a git commit. I can
still add the "stable" tag to it when it goes to git. :-)
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 04:25:20 PM Shuah Khan wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > During resume from system suspend the 'data' field of
>> > struct pnp_dev in pnpacpi_set_resources() may be a stale pointer,
>> > due to removal of the associated ACPI device node object in the
>> > previous suspend-resume cycle. This happens, for example, if a
>> > dockable machine is booted in the docking station and then suspended
>> > and resumed and suspended again. If that happens,
>> > pnpacpi_build_resource_template() called from pnpacpi_set_resources()
>> > attempts to use that pointer and crashes.
>> >
>> > However, pnpacpi_set_resources() actually checks the device's ACPI
>> > handle, attempts to find the ACPI device node object attached to it
>> > and returns an error code if that fails, so in fact it knows what the
>> > correct value of dev->data should be. Use this observation to update
>> > dev->data with the correct value if necessary and dump a call trace
>> > if that's the case (once).
>> >
>> > We still need to fix the root cause of this issue, but preventing
>> > systems from crashing because of it is an improvement too.
>> >
>> > Reported-and-tested-by: Zdenek Kabelac <[email protected]>
>> > References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51071
>> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
>>
>> Any reason why this shouldn't go into stable releases?
>
> Yes, it can go to -stable. This is just a patch, not a git commit. I can
> still add the "stable" tag to it when it goes to git. :-)
>
Good. This patch applies just fine to 3.0.x, 3.4.x and 3.6.x for what
its worth. That's how far I have gotten so far and getting ready to do
compile tests on these.
-- Shuah