lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] poweroff: fix bug in orderly_poweroff
hongfeng <hongfeng@marvell.com> writes:

> orderly_poweroff is trying to poweroff platform by two steps:
> step 1: Call userspace application to poweroff
> step 2: If userspace poweroff fail, then do a force power off if force param is set.
>
> The bug here is, step 1 is always successful with param UMH_NO_WAIT,

This code has existed for 5 years. Is this a recent regression? Why
has no one complained before?

It looks to me that step 2 is:
step 2: If we can not launch the userspace poweroff fail.

> should change to UMH_WAIT_PROC which will monitor the return value
> ofuserspace application.

Is it safe to block indefinitely in the callers waiting for userspace?

If the caller is not running in a kernel thread then we can easily get
into a case where the userspace caller will block waiting for us when we
are waiting for the userspace caller.

I don't want to impeded progress but I don't see the evidence that this
change is good enough.


> Change-Id: I2f9ebbb90c0c2443780080ec9507c8d004e5da74
> Signed-off-by: Feng Hong <hongfeng@marvell.com>
> ---
> kernel/sys.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
> index 241507f..1b30b30 100644
> --- a/kernel/sys.c
> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> @@ -2204,7 +2204,7 @@ static int __orderly_poweroff(void)
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> - ret = call_usermodehelper_fns(argv[0], argv, envp, UMH_NO_WAIT,
> + ret = call_usermodehelper_fns(argv[0], argv, envp, UMH_WAIT_PROC,
> NULL, argv_cleanup, NULL);
> if (ret == -ENOMEM)
> argv_free(argv);


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-19 07:21    [W:0.057 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site