linux-kernel - Re: suspend blockers & Android integration

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]

Date:	Sun, 6 Jun 2010 12:36:21 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tytso@....edu,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: suspend blockers & Android integration

On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>:
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>:
> >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> >> > That download might take a minute or two, but that's not an
> >> >> >> > justification for the crapplication to run unconfined and prevent
> >> >> >> > lower power states.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I agree, but this is not a simple problem to solve.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not with suspend blockers, but with cgroup confinement of crap, it's
> >> >> > straight forward.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think is is straight forward. If the a process in the frozen
> >> >> group holds a resource that a process in the unfrozen group needs, how
> >> >> do deal with that?
> >> >
> >> > I'm going to fix the framework which puts the group into freeze state
> >> > w/o making sure that there is no held shared resource. Come on it's
> >> > not rocket science.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'm not sure which framework you are talking about here, but I don't
> >> think there is a single framework that knows about all shared
> >> resources.
> >
> > Damn, it's not me talking about "our framework", you are mentioning
> > when it fits your needs.
> 
> You said you were going to fix the framework. I did know if you were
> talking about the cgroup framework, or the android user-space
> frameworks. I don't think either has knowledge about all shared
> resources.

The cgroup freezer makes sure that there are no in kernel resources
blocked. Of course the user space side has to do the same and it's not
rocket science.
 
> >
> > If you do not have a clearly defined user space framework, then we
> > talk about a completely random conglomeration of applications which
> > need to be brought into submission by some global brute force
> > approach.
> >
> > I'm tired of this, really. You just use terminlology as it fits to
> > defend the complete design failure of android. But you fail to trick
> > me :)
> >
> > Can you please explain in a consistent way how the application stack
> > and the underlying framework (which exists according to android docs)
> > is handling events and how the separation of trust level works ?
> >
> 
> I don't think I can, since I only know small parts of it. I know some

Sigh. That's the main reason why this discussion goes nowhere.

How in heavens sake can we make a decision whether suspend blockers
are the right and only way to go, when the people 

> events like input event go though a single thread in our system
> process, while other events like network packets (which are also
> wakeup events) goes directly to the app.