| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:36:53 +0100 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.name>, pm list <linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] question on resume() Hi! > > Yes, it will. The process freezer can only return success if there are no more > > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks. Otherwise it fails (after a timeout). > > So, this means, on suspend(): > > 1. Don't worry about TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE > 2. Do worry about TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE > We have to cease IO and must not call wake_up_interruptible() "cease IO"? No, I believe it is enough not to start new I/O. Userspace is frozen at that point, it can't ask you to do I/O. > Isn't that a race until suspend() is called? I do not think so. > On resume(): > > 1. Don't worry about TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE > 2. Do not restart IO that may call wake_up_interruptible() > > When do we restart such IO? We reuse signal handling code to do that for us. It is same situation as when someone signals task doing I/O. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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