linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Freeze bdevs when freezing processes.

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]

Message-Id: <200610241730.00488.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:29:59 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>
Cc:	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...uxmail.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Freeze bdevs when freezing processes.

On Tuesday, 24 October 2006 16:44, David Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 12:36:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 23 October 2006 06:12, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > XFS can continue to submit I/O from a timer routine, even after
> > > freezeable kernel and userspace threads are frozen. This doesn't seem to
> > > be an issue for current swsusp code,
> > 
> > So it doesn't look like we need the patch _now_.
> > 
> > > but is definitely an issue for Suspend2, where the pages being written could
> > > be overwritten by Suspend2's atomic copy.
> > 
> > And IMO that's a good reason why we shouldn't use RCU pages for storing the
> > image.  XFS is one known example that breaks things if we do so and
> > there may be more such things that we don't know of.  The fact that they
> > haven't appeared in testing so far doesn't mean they don't exist and
> > moreover some things like that may appear in the future.
> 
> Could you please tell us which XFS bits are broken so we can get
> them fixed?  The XFS daemons should all be checking if they are
> supposed to freeze (i.e. they call try_to_freeze() after they wake
> up due to timer expiry) so I thought they were doing the right
> thing.
> 
> However, I have to say that I agree with freezing the filesystems
> before suspend - at least XFS will be in a consistent state that can
> be recovered from without corruption if your machine fails to
> resume....

Do you mean calling sys_sync() after the userspace has been frozen
may not be sufficient?

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
		R. Buckminster Fuller
-
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/