linux-kernel - Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1180059605.3997.100.camel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2007 12:20:05 +1000
From:	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Romano Giannetti <romanol@...omillas.es>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable@...nel.org, Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
	Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>,
	Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: pcmcia resume 60 second hang. Re: [patch 00/69] -stable review

Hi Linus.

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 19:10 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > 
> > First, let me agree with you that for the atomic copy itself, the
> > freezer is unnecessary. Disabling irqs and so on is enough to ensure the
> > atomic copy is atomic. I don't think any of us are arguing with you
> > there.
> 
> First off, realize that the problem actually happens during 
> suspend-to-ram.
> 
> Think about that for a second.
> 
> In fact, think about it for a _loong_ time. Because dammit, people seem to 
> have a really hard time even realizing this.
> 
> 	There is no "atomic copy".
> 
> 	There is no "checkpointing".
> 
> 	There is no "spoon".
> 
> > Hope this helps.
> 
> Hope _the_above_ helps. Why is it so hard for people to accept that 
> suspend-to-ram shouldn't break because of some IDIOTIC issues with disk 
> snapshots?
> 
> And why do you people _always_ keep mixing the two up?

It does. Sorry. I didn't read enough of the context.

To answer the question, I guess the answer is that although they're
different creatures, they have similarities. This is one of them, which
is why I could make the mistake I did. Nothing in the issue being
discussed was unique to suspend-to-ram. Perhaps we (or at least I) focus
too much on the similarities, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

Regards,

Nigel

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)