linux-kernel - Re: Regression in suspend to ram in 2.6.31-rc kernels

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:	Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:21:56 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: Regression in suspend to ram in 2.6.31-rc kernels

Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> writes:

>> It seems
>> 
>>     1) sync() (probabry "sync" command)
>>     2) sync as part of suspend sequence
>>     3) sync_filesystem() by mmc remove event
>> 
>> I guess the root-cause of the problem would be 3). However, it would not
>> be easy to fix, at least, we would need to think about what we want to
>> do for it. So, to workaround it for now, I've made this patch.
>
> MMC driver trying to synchronize filesystems looks like ugly layering
> violation to me. Why are we doing that?

There is no _layering violation_ here. IIRC, mmc just tells card removed
event to another layer (on some points of view, to tell event can be
wrong though). The partition (block) layer does it by event.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/