| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 14:19:13 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> Cc: oliver@...kum.org, paulus@...ba.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu, johannes@...solutions.net, rjw@...k.pl, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway On Fri 2007-07-06 09:07:38, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > Actually fuse allows SIGKILL, because it's always fatal, and the > > > syscall may not be restarted. > > > > Okay, and you should handle refrigerator in the same paths where you > > handle SIGKILL. Just add try_to_freeze() there... > > It's the fourth time I'm repeating this in this thread: > > Yes adding try_to_freeze() there would partially solve the probelem. > > But another task can be sleeping on a mutex held by the task waiting > for the reply. And the freezer won't be able to handle that one. > > Generally, calling try_to_freeze() with mutexes held is not a good > idea. Agreed, calling try_to_freeze() with mutex held is no-no, and it is even documented somewhere. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists