| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070704234523.GC2719@elf.ucw.cz> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:45:23 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, rjw@...k.pl, benh@...nel.crashing.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, nigel@...el.suspend2.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway On Tue 2007-07-03 21:32:20, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi: > > > And a further question. The freezer is not atomic. What do you do > > > if a task not yet frozen calls sys_sync(), but fuse is already frozen? > > > > What do you do if a task not yet frozen writes to a pipe, on the other > > end of which is a task already frozen? There's some difference between uninterruptible and interruptible sleep I'd say. > > It doesn't matter. The only thing that should matter during suspend > > (not hibernate) is saving the state of devices to ram, and putting the > > devices to sleep. > > Well, but you did remove sys_sync() from the freezer, which is > and must be called in the hibernate path. Not "must". In fact, hibernation should be safe without sys_sync(). It is just user un-friendly. 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