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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 29 May 2007 10:19:24 -0400
From:	Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To:	nigel@...el.suspend2.net
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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

Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>
> I'm sorry to say it, but dropping process freezing still seems to me
> like the better way though. I prefer it because of the reliability
> aspect. With the current code, having frozen processes, I can look at
> the state of memory, calculate how much I'll need for this or that and
> know that I'll have sufficient memory for the atomic copy and for doing
> the I/O  (making assumptions about how much memory drivers will
> allocate) before I start to do either. If we stop freezing processes,
> that predictability will go away. There'll always be a possibility that
> some process will get memory hungry and stop me from being able to get
> the image on disk, and I'll have to either abort or give up and try
> again and again until I can complete writing the image, the battery runs
> out or whatever... 

How about blocking brk() and mmap(MAP_ANONYMOUS) in addition to
the filesystem VFS callers?   Or is that starting to get messy again?

Cheers

-
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/