linux-kernel - Re: [suspend/resume] Re: userspace notification from module

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: <201001162307.48085.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:07:48 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	"Bart?omiej Zimo?" <uzi18@...pl>, Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>,
	Daniel Borkmann <danborkmann@...glemail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rpurdie@...ys.net, lenz@...wisc.edu,
	Dirk@...er-online.de, arminlitzel@....de,
	Cyril Hrubis <metan@....cz>, thommycheck@...il.com,
	"linux-arm-kernel" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	dbaryshkov@...il.com, omegamoon@...il.com, eric.y.miao@...il.com,
	utx@...guin.cz, zaurus-devel@...ts.linuxtogo.org
Subject: Re: [suspend/resume] Re: userspace notification from module

On Saturday 16 January 2010, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > I wasn't aware of this.
> > > > 
> > > > That may be a good reason for adding kernel-based suspend notification,
> > > > although I'd prefer ARM to notify the user space about the critical battery
> > > > status allowing it to decide what to do.
> > > 
> > > Hard to do, without breaking compatibility that goes down to 2.4.X.
> > 
> > Sending a battery-critical notification to the user space is not equivalent to
> > removing the existing kernel-based mechanism.  They can exist both at the
> > same time if the notification is sent earlier than the kernel suspends
> > everything. 
> 
> Yes, and obviously sending notification early is ok with me.
> 
> > > It really makes sense on zaurus. Those machines are simple, no
> > > smartbattery and no embedded controller subsystems. Battery will not
> > > protect itself, and its kernel job. (Should work on init=/bin/bash).
> > > 
> > > As power-off consumption is same as suspend power consumption (I
> > > beleive zaurus simply does not have true power off), suspend on
> > > critical makes some sense. (Note that it is set lower than on pcs, and
> > > that we declare battery critical sooner than that.)
> > 
> > The problem with that is it catches at least some applications unprepared and
> > notifying them that "we're suspending right now" doesn't really help, because
> > they won't have any time to react anyway.
> 
> Agreed, but so what? On PC, machine would power off at that
> point. That would surprise the apps, too.
> 
> Basically new enough userland should not make battery run low enough
> for either emergency power off or emergency suspend.

I wonder how it is supposed to achieve that without knowing the current battery
status.  Do you mean it should poll the battery driver?

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/