linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] lp_events: an lternitive to suspend blocker user mode and kernel API

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: <AANLkTik4ixmtv5Ki7jds5gEspJAxBRAcJCR1Jv-V6ajR@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 May 2010 22:24:30 -0700
From:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To:	markgross@...gnar.org
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, mark.gross@...el.com,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arve@...p1.linux-foundation.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC] lp_events: an lternitive to suspend blocker user 
	mode and kernel API

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:09 PM, mark gross <640e9920@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:45:21AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday 01 June 2010, mark gross wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 09:57:53AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
>> ...
>> > > So I would suggest modifying your proposal to simply create a new 'input'
>> > > device.  Any driver that supports wake-from-suspend queues an event to that
>> > > device when a wakeup event occurs.  If the device is open and has any queued
>> > > events, then a suspend request such as 'echo mem > /sys/power/state' completes
>> > > without going into full suspend.
>> >
>> > /me likes.
>> >
>> > > Then you just need to convince us that this mechanism can be used without any
>> > > race problems.  If it can, then it would certainly be a simple and
>> > > unobtrusive approach.
>> >
>> > Lets find out.
>>
>> Simple question: how is that better than the Alan Stern's proposed approach?
>>
> I just saw Alan Stern's proposal, and have gotten some input form some
> others.  I can't say my patch represents a better Idea than what Alan
> proposed.  However; what Alan (and Thomas) are talking about is
> effectively the same as the kenrel mode wakelock/suspend blocker thing,
> and although it reuses existing infrastructure, it doesn't solve the
> problem of needing overlapping blocking sections of code from ISR to
> user mode.
>

I don't think your solution solves this either.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/