linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] PM / Core: suspend

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: <20110426131737.GA13597@suse.de>
Date:	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:17:37 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"Jean Delvare (PC drivers core)" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	"Ben Dooks (embedded platforms)" <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, myungjoo.ham@...il.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] PM / Core: suspend_again callback for device
 PM.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 01:47:21PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Moreover, I'm not sure if kernel subsystems (including drivers) should really
> decide when to generate wakeup signals in the first place.  Generally,
> user space decides what devices should wake up the system from sleep and the
> kernel should follow.  So, there shouldn't be any wakeup signals enabled
> beyond what user space has requested.

The RTC wakeup signals are ok though, right?  Userspace is the one
asking for that from what I can tell.

> To conclude, I'm not sure about the approach.  In particular, I'm not sure
> if the benefit is worth the effort and the resulting complications (ie. the
> possibility of having to deal with wakeup signals not requested by user
> space) seem to be a bit too far reaching.
> 
> Greg, what do you think?

I agree with you in that I don't think that this type of feature is
valid at the moment.

I don't understand why our current situation doesn't work, what are we
lacking that is needed for these systems that we have not seen before?

What is the root problem that this is trying to solve?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/