linux-kernel - Re: Hibernation Redesign

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]

Message-Id: <E1I8bKJ-0000IO-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:29:51 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	rjw@...k.pl
CC:	miklos@...redi.hu, nigel@...el.suspend2.net, a1426z@...ab.com,
	jeremy@...p.org, jbms@....edu, pavel@....cz,
	nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Hibernation Redesign

> > > > Freezing of tasks is slowing down suspend.  Don't know how serious
> > > > this is, suspend is pretty fast, but could possibly be even faster.
> > > 
> > > It's FUD. Freezing of tasks normally takes next to no time. I've never 
> > > understood the rediculously long timeout it has. If freezing succeeds, all 
> > > processes are frozen within 1/2 a second tops. If it fails, nothing is going 
> > > to change in the following 19.5 seconds (or whatever it is if I don't 
> > > remember the value properly).
> > 
> > Right.  The 20s timeout is again a sign of brokenness.
> 
> Are you still serious?
> 
> > If we expect something to fail, it should fail immediately, without
> > waiting for arbitrary timeouts.
> 
> I don't agree.  If you think so, then please tell me what the softlockup
> infrastructure is for.
> 
> > And if we don't expect it to fail, why the timeout?
> 
> We know that it can fail, so we use the timeout to detect failures.
>  
> > Of course we know it can fail (network problems, etc), so it's wrong
> > whatever way we look at it.
> 
> Are you trying to say that whatever can fail is wrong?

No. Sorry about the sloppy sentence.

What I was trying to say, is that if we _know_ that the suspend can
fail, it is wrong to have a timeout to determine that it will fail.

Miklos
-
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/