linux-kernel - Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

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:	Fri, 8 May 2009 21:44:57 +0200
From:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To:	nigel@...onice.net
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	tuxonice-devel@...ts.tuxonice.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

On Friday 08 May 2009 03:34:19 Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 23:51 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Thu 2009-05-07 19:42:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thursday 07 May 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > 
> > > > > I'd like to submit TuxOnIce for review, with a view to seeking to get it
> > > > > merged, perhaps in 2.6.31 or .32 (depending upon what needs work before
> > > > > it can be merged) and the willingness of those who matter.
> > ...
> > > > To summarise disadvantages:
> > > > 
> > > > - only core has 8000 LoC
> > > > - it does stuff that can be easily done in userspace
> > > >      (and that todays distros _do_ in userspace).
> > > > - it duplicates uswsusp functionality.
> > > > - compared to [u]swsusp, it received little testing
> > > 
> > > Actually, I see advantages of working together versus fighting flame wars.
> > > Please stop that, I'm not going to take part in it this time.
> > 
> > Ok, so what do you propose? Merging tuxonice into 2.6.32, resulting in
> > having swsusp,uswsusp *and* tuxonice to maintain? I hope not.
> > 
> > If we are talking about improving mainline to allow tuxonice
> > functionality... then yes, that sounds reasonable.
> 
> I'd like to see use have all three for one or two releases of vanilla,
> just to give time to work out any issues that haven't been foreseen.
> Once we're all that there are confident there are no regressions with
> TuxOnIce, I'd remove swsusp. That's my ideal plan of attack.

Please proceed to Plan B then.

Adding third core code framework to do the same thing is out of question
(probably same should have been said about adding second one in the past).

Moreover you will for sure hit much more regressions than you expect
(I "love" seeing over and over again when people/companies get trapped
into fallacy of superiority of their _own_ solution).

I really wouldn't consider teaming with Rafael to work on "swsuspOnTux"
(evolving the in-kernel code while re-using chunks of TuxOnIce code) as
a bad Plan B.  It has the potential of resulting in a solution clearly
superior to all existing ones (TuxOnIce included).

Thanks,
Bart
--
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/