linux-kernel - Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

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:	Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:57:39 +0300
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, david@...g.hm,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, pavel@....cz,
	florian@...kler.org, rjw@...k.pl, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, menage@...gle.com,
	david-b@...bell.net, James.Bottomley@...e.de, arjan@...radead.org,
	swmike@....pp.se, galibert@...ox.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:11:22PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> So far, nobody has refuted these:
>>  1) opportunistic suspend needs a good behaved user-space to work properly
>>  2) if suspend blockers are enabled in a system, *all* user-space must
>> implement them to work correctly
>
> For this note that there's a fairly strong expectation that even in a
> phone type environment a sane userspace implementation will involve a
> very large portion of userspace just totally ignoring suspend blockers.
> This means that while it is true that userspace as a whole must have
> support for suspend blockers the changes required are substantially less
> invasive than you appear to expecting.

Correct, but still a considerable amount of changes would need to be
done, which _nobody_ has expressed any intention to do.

Besides, IMO a good mobile platform would share as much as possible
with desktop software. Say, the improvements Nokia has endorsed on the
Telepathy IM framework can only help the people already using it on
the desktop.

However, personally, if I ever have to do './configure
--enable-suspend-blockers', I would think that something that just
doesn't belong has creped by to user-space. I don't see why there
should something particularly different between mobile phones and
laptops, and I think this has been already expressed over, and over.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/