linux-kernel - Re: freeze vs freezer

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: <474C9EEE.4090904@goop.org>
Date:	Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:49:18 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	David Chinner <dgc@....com>, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: freeze vs freezer

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, this is more-or-less how we all imagine that should be done eventually.
>
> The main problem is how to implement it without causing too much breakage.
> Also, there are some dirty details that need to be taken into consideration.
>   

For Xen suspend/resume, I'd like to use the freezer to get all threads
into a known consistent state (where, specifically, they don't have any
outstanding pagetable updates pending).  In other words, the freezer as
it currently stands is what I want, modulo some of these issues where it
gets caught up unexpectedly.  If threads end up getting frozen anywhere
preempt isn't explicitly disabled, it wouldn't work for me.

    J
-
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/