linux-kernel - Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

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: <200905081611.41865.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Fri, 8 May 2009 16:11:41 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	nigel@...onice.net
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	tuxonice-devel@...ts.tuxonice.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [TuxOnIce-devel] [RFC] TuxOnIce

On Friday 08 May 2009, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 23:51 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Thu 2009-05-07 19:42:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thursday 07 May 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > 
> > > > > I'd like to submit TuxOnIce for review, with a view to seeking to get it
> > > > > merged, perhaps in 2.6.31 or .32 (depending upon what needs work before
> > > > > it can be merged) and the willingness of those who matter.
> > ...
> > > > To summarise disadvantages:
> > > > 
> > > > - only core has 8000 LoC
> > > > - it does stuff that can be easily done in userspace
> > > >      (and that todays distros _do_ in userspace).
> > > > - it duplicates uswsusp functionality.
> > > > - compared to [u]swsusp, it received little testing
> > > 
> > > Actually, I see advantages of working together versus fighting flame wars.
> > > Please stop that, I'm not going to take part in it this time.
> > 
> > Ok, so what do you propose? Merging tuxonice into 2.6.32, resulting in
> > having swsusp,uswsusp *and* tuxonice to maintain? I hope not.
> > 
> > If we are talking about improving mainline to allow tuxonice
> > functionality... then yes, that sounds reasonable.
> 
> I'd like to see use have all three for one or two releases of vanilla,
> just to give time to work out any issues that haven't been foreseen.
> Once we're all that there are confident there are no regressions with
> TuxOnIce, I'd remove swsusp. That's my ideal plan of attack.

So this is an idea to replace our current hibernation implementation with
TuxOnIce.

Which unfortunately I don't agree with.

I think we can get _one_ implementation out of the three, presumably keeping
the user space interface that will keep the current s2disk binaries happy, by
merging TuxOnIce code _gradually_.  No "all at once" approach, please.

And by "merging" I mean _exactly_ that.  Not adding new code and throwing
away the old one.

While I can work on creating one hibernation implementation by taking the
best ideas from all of the implementation we have at hand, I surely won't be
working on replacing our current code with TuxOnIce.  If that disappoints you,
then I'm sorry.

Best,
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/