linux-kernel - Re: Hibernation considerations

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, 17 Jul 2007 10:15:39 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	david@...g.hm
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
Subject: Re: Hibernation considerations

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 david@...g.hm wrote:

> > I agree, it would be good to have a non-ACPI-specific hibernation mode,
> > something which would look to ACPI like a normal shutdown.  But I'm not
> > so sure this is possible.
> 
> why would it not be possible?

> I can't think of anything much more frustrating then thinking that I 
> suspended a system and then discovering that becouse the battery went dead 
> (a complete power loss) that the system wouldn't boot up properly. to me 
> this would be a fairly common condition (when I'm mobile I use the machine 
> until I am out of battery, then stop and it may be a long time (days) 
> before I can charge the thing up again) this would not be a reliable 
> suspend as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> for suspend-to-ram you have to worry about ACPI states and what you are 
> doing with them, for suspend-to-disk you can ignore them and completely 
> power the system off instead.

If the only problem with doing this would be lack of wakeup support
then I'm all for it.  There must be a lot of people who would like
their computers to hibernate with power drain as close to 0 as possible
and who don't care about remote wakeup.  In fact they might even prefer
not to have wakeup support, so the computer doesn't resume at
unexpected times.

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/