linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, rjw@...k.pl,
	nigel@...el.suspend2.net, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	nigel@...pend2.net, jbms@....edu, miltonm@....com,
	ying.huang@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Re: Hibernation considerations

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> Am Montag 23 Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi:
>>> The reason is that we want them to "park" in safe places, ie. where there
>>> are no locks held etc.  Thus, these safe places need to be chosen somehow
>>> and since they are not marked throughout the code, we choose the obvious
>>> one. :-)
>>
>> Why shouldn't locks be held?
>>
>> No locks which are required for suspend must be held, sure.  But
>> otherwise holding locks doesn't matter at all.
>
> If you can provide a way to tell them apart, this would work.

can you just tell the driver to try and suspend and if it reports back 
that it fails back out of the suspend? or will the driver deadlock instead 
of reporting a failure if a lock is held.

David Lang