| 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: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:55:44 +0200 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: nigel@...pend2.net CC: miklos@...redi.hu, rjw@...k.pl, 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 > The point to freezing tasks isn't just to stop drivers doing work. It's also > to stop userspace doing work and thereby increase reliability. The more work > that is occuring while we're trying to write a hibernation image, the less > reliable the hibernation will be (competing for memory and so on) and the > slower it will be (competing for cycles etc). We are talking about a kexec based hibernate. All of the above just doesn't apply in that case. I'm not contending, that the current hibernation (epecially Pavel's new userspace based one) needs a frozen userland. > > > Why? How can such ordering be determined programmatically? > > > > It can't. If you are interested, please read through that thread. If > > something's still not clear, let's discuss it further. > > You can say it "imposes certain ordering" but you can say what that ordering > is?! How about mount order? That must be a good start. The order in which tasks are relying on each other to be able to finish a syscall. Mount order says _nothing_ about tasks. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists