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: <20100605225012.771332db@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date:	Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:50:12 +0200
From:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
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, 5 Jun 2010 23:06:03 +0300
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com> wrote:

> 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).

IIRC, the patches discussed have debugging infrastructure in
them. The kernel does the accounting. 

> 
> > 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.
> 
If you think a little about it, it is. Because if the app wouldn't be
usable at all, the bug wouldn't get fixed because the user wouldn't use
it. Or not?

Cheers,
Flo
--
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/