linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 7)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201005190056.36804.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 19 May 2010 00:56:36 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc:	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 7)

On Wednesday 19 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/5/18 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
> > On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> 2010/5/18 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
> >> > On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> >> > On Monday 17 May 2010, Brian Swetland wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Monday 17 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> > ...
> >>
> >> > Now, to make it more "user-friendly", we can simply use
> >> > queue_delayed_work() with a reasonable delay instead of queue_work() to queue
> >> > the suspend work (the delay may be configurable via sysfs).
> >> >
> >>
> >> I can add a delay (and the timeout support code does add a delay as an
> >> optimization) to the unknown wakeup case, but this does not fix the
> >> problem of a user turning on opportunistic suspend with a user space
> >> framework that does not use suspend blockers. If the kernel uses
> >> suspend blockers to make sure the wakeup event makes it to user space,
> >> but user space does not block suspend, then the system will suspend
> >> before the event is processed.
> >
> > But the user can still manually write to /sys/power/state. :-)
> >
> 
> Does adding or removing a delay change this? It seems in only changes
> how quickly the user can finish that write.

Yes, but that should allow the user to avoid rebooting the system if he does
the "wrong thing".

> I'm not convinced adding a configurable delay here is necessary.

No, it's not, but it would be useful in some cases IMO.  Pretty much the same
way your debug features are useful.

> Once the driver that enabled the wakeup event has been updated to block
> suspend until this event gets to user space, then this delay will
> never be triggered. The kernel cannot tell the difference between a
> user enabling opportunistic suspend but not wanting it and
> opportunistic suspend aware user space code deciding that this wakeup
> event should be ignored.

The point is, if there's a delay, it may be too aggressive for some users and
too conservative for some other users, so it makes sense to provide a means
to adjust it to the user's needs.

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/