| 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: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:57:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 12:03:33PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > Suspend to RAM on a machine with / on a fuse filesystem turns out to be > > > a screaming nightmare - either the suspend fails because syslog (for > > > instance) can't be frozen, or the machine deadlocks for some other > > > reason I haven't tracked down. We could "fix" fuse, or alternatively we > > > could do what we do for suspend to RAM on other platforms (PPC and APM) > > > and just not use the freezer. > > > > Quite apart from the sync() matter, _any_ synchronous call to a FUSE > > filesystem during STR will cause trouble. Even if the user task > > implementing the filesystem isn't frozen, when it tries to carry out > > some I/O to a suspended device it will either: > > > > block until the system wakes up, or > > For the suspend to RAM case, that sounds absolutely fine. It's not so good when your suspend process has to wait for the call to complete! Alan Stern - 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