[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 17:08:10 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, david@...g.hm,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
kevin granade <kevin.granade@...il.com>,
Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pavel@....cz, florian@...kler.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 04:35:13PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> appropriately; that's not the case.
>
> 1) Install a bad application that requests PM permissions and is granted those
>
> In this case you've gained nothing with user-space suspend blockers.
It's clearly possible for a pathological Android application to destroy
the power management policy. But to do that, the author would have to
explicitly take a wakelock. That's difficult to do by accident. The
various failure modes that exist in a non-wakelock world can be
triggered in a wide variety of ways by accident. A sufficiently
reductionist viewpoint will equate the two situations, but in the real
world they're clearly different.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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