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

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.4.44L0.1005281257040.1939-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Fri, 28 May 2010 13:01:31 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <tytso@....edu>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

On Fri, 28 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote:

> > I think Arve's concern was the representation of the "I care, but only
> > a little" or "just low enough to ensure threads must run" level which
> > is what suspend blockers would map to (low enough to ensure we
> > shouldn't halt the world but not necessarily implying a hard latency
> > constraint beyond that).
> 
> That's why I suggested "manyana" (can't get accents for mañana in a
> define) or perhaps "dreckly"[1]. They are both words that mean "at some
> point" but in a very very vague and 'relax it'll happen eventually' sense.

A USA-style equivalent phrase might be "Real Soon Now".  Except that it 
conveys a strong implication that the event will never happen...

> > That makes sense -- and as I've mentioned elsewhere, we're really not
> > super picky about naming -- if it turns out that
> > wakelocks/suspendblockers were shorthand for "request a qos constraint
> > that ensures that threads are running", we'll be able to get things
> > done just as well as we do now.
> 
> Cool. I think they are or at least they are close enough that nobody will
> notice the join ;)

Why are suspend blockers needed if you're going to put all untrusted 
apps in a cgroup and freeze/stop them?  Or is that not what you're 
planning to do?

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/