linux-kernel - Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008041529530.6545@asgard.lang.hm>
Date:	Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	pavel@....cz, florian@...kler.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	swetland@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:51:07PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 04, 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> No! And that's precisely the issue. Android's existing behaviour could
>>> be entirely implemented in the form of binary that manually triggers
>>> suspend when (a) the screen is off and (b) no userspace applications
>>> have indicated that the system shouldn't sleep, except for the wakeup
>>> event race. Imagine the following:
>>>
>>> 1) The policy timeout is about to expire. No applications are holding
>>> wakelocks. The system will suspend providing nothing takes a wakelock.
>>> 2) A network packet arrives indicating an incoming SIP call
>>> 3) The VOIP application takes a wakelock and prevents the phone from
>>> suspending while the call is in progress
>>>
>>> What stops the system going to sleep between (2) and (3)? cgroups don't,
>>> because the voip app is an otherwise untrusted application that you've
>>> just told the scheduler to ignore.
>>
>> I _think_ you can use the just-merged /sys/power/wakeup_count mechanism to
>> avoid the race (if pm_wakeup_event() is called at 2)).
>
> Yes, I think that solves the problem. The only question then is whether
> it's preferable to use cgroups or suspend fully, which is pretty much up
> to the implementation. In other words, is there a reason we're still
> having this conversation? :) It'd be good to have some feedback from
> Google as to whether this satisfies their functional requirements.

the proposal that I nade was not to use cgroups to freeze some processes 
and not others, but to use cgroups to decide to ignore some processes when 
deciding if the system is idle, stop everything or nothing. cgroups are 
just a way of easily grouping processes (and their children) into 
different groups.

David Lang
--
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/