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]

Date:	Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	nigel@...pend2.net
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"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>,
	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

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote:

> 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.

as someone who's eager to have this work, I have to agree with Nigel that 
it's premature to talk about merging anything.

the only exception I could see is if there are other uses for this 
functionality. but even then, let things settle out a little bit.

David Lang
-
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/