linux-kernel - Re: [PATH 0/1] Kexec jump - v2 - the first step to kexec based hibernation

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: <200707191215.05245.nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:15:04 +1000
From:	Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@....edu>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, david@...g.hm,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATH 0/1] Kexec jump - v2 - the first step to kexec based hibernation

Hi.

On Thursday 19 July 2007 11:04:20 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:13:13 +0800
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The changelog between v1 and v2
> > 
> > 1. The kexec jump implementation is put into the kexec/kdump
> >    framework instead of software suspend framework. The device
> >    and CPU state save/restore code of software suspend is called
> >    when needed.
> > 
> > 2. The same code path is used for both kexec a new kernel and jump
> >    back to original kernel.
> 
> I like the idea but I think I'll let people chat about it a bit more
> before looking at merging the patches, OK?

Please wait until you see a complete implementation that actually works. I'm 
sitting here quietly, following (and now breaking) the "If you can't say 
anything positive, don't say anything at all" line because I think that the 
more into the implementation details people get, the uglier this is going to 
show itself to be. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but haven't seen 
anything so far that's even begun to convince me otherwise.

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
See http://www.tuxonice.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing
lists, wiki and bugzilla info.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped