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: <AANLkTilhvUn3PfnHsJTNzhr59xrUyvGlFmnAOnub65sE@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:06:03 +0300
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Paul@...p1.linux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, felipe.balbi@...ia.com,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:30:40 +0300
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com> wrote:
>> I don't think the suspend blockers solve much. A bad application will
>> behave bad on any system. Suppose somebody decides to port Firefox to
>> Android, and forgets to listen to the screen off event (bad on Android
>> or Maemo), however, notices the application behaves very badly, so by
>> googling finds these suspend blockers, and enables them all the time
>> the application runs.
>>
>> When the user install the application, will be greeted by a warning
>> "This application might break PM, do you want to enable suspend
>> blockers?" (or whatever), as any typical user would do, will press Yes
>> (whatever).
>>
>> We end up in exactly the same situation.
>>
> No. The application will show up in the suspend blocker stats and the
> user will remember: "Oh, yes. There was a warning about that. Well I
> think I'm going to file a bug there."

How would such stats be calculated? I presume at regular intervals you
check which applications are holding suspend blockers and increase a
counter.

How would you do that with the dynamic PM approach? At regular
intervals you check for which applications are running (not idle).

> The only difference is, that with suspend blockers, he can than
> dismiss the applications permission to block suspend and will not miss
> his job interview the next day because his phones battery run
> out. And also he can use the application to a certain extent.

So the difference is between removing the app, and making it run
crappy. I don't think that's a strong argument in favor of suspend
blockers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/