linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] sleepy linux

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: <200801021152.52639.oliver@neukum.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:52:51 +0100
From:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sleepy linux

Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 15:44:47 schrieb Pavel Machek:
> On Sun 2007-12-30 17:39:42, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> > But what's wrong with calling suspend() the conventional way once you've
> > decided to go into sleepy mode?
> 
> I'm not sure if it can be done in non-racy way. It is different from
> "conventional" suspend(): you can still have userland requests after
> this suspend(), and you should abort auto-sleep if you get one. (As
> opposed to blocking in system suspend case).

But we are always racing against hardware in these cases.

Strictly speaking you cannot have pure userland request. If no task
is runnable and no timer about to fire any activity will require kernel
activity unless you are doing direct hardware access from user space
which in the generic case precludes suspension anyway.

	Regards
		Oliver
--
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/