linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny

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:	Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:57:03 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint()

On Friday, 10 of October 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> 
> > > > Surely not ACPI-compliant.
> > > 
> > > what do you mean?
> > 
> > The ACPI spec says quite specifically what should be done while 
> > entering hibernation and during resume from hibernation.  We're not 
> > following that in the current code, but we can (gradually) update the 
> > code to become ACPI-compilant in that respect.  However, if we go the 
> > checkpointing route, I don't think that will be possible any more.
> 
> ah, i see. I did not mean to utilize any ACPI paths but simple powerdown 
> or reboot.
> 
> If we checkpoint all apps to persistent disk areas (which the checkpoint 
> patches in this thread are about), then we can just reboot the kernel 
> and forget all its state.
> 
> That capability can be used to build a really robust hibernation 
> implementation IMO: we could "hibernate/kexec" over between different 
> kernel versions transparently. (only a small delay will be noticed by 
> the user - if we do it smartly with in-kernel modesetting then not even 
> the screen contents will be changed over this.)

That actually should be called a migration of VM IMO and would be a useful
functionality.  Sure.

Hibernation, however, generally involves the restoration of the hardware and
most importantly _platform_ state which IMO is impossible without the ACPI
functionality, as well as wake-up, which may depend on ACPI too.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/