linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for frozen filesystems.

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0810300955020.2401-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:56:48 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>
cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, <rjw@...k.pl>,
	<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for frozen
 filesystems.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:

> > Well yeah, your patch handles the straightforward cases.  But it
> > doesn't help with the more tricky cases, where one fuse filesystem is
> > using another, and as those may become more widespread, this approach
> > will fail.
> 
> At the moment, yes. But it's not impossible for us to modify the patch
> to handle that as well.

It depends on what you mean.  The most direct reading of your statement
is simply wrong: It is _theoretically_ impossible to find the correct
order for freezing filesystems.  To do so would be equivalent to
solving the halting problem.

Alan Stern

--
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/