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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 12:35:34 +0200 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, menage@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] freezer: make exiting tasks properly unfreezable Hello, Rafael. On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:09:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > One thing I'm curious about is how many drivers do we have left which > > depend on freezer as opposed to implementing proper quiescing > > mechanism using PM hooks? Are there still a lot left? > > There is a number of drivers that use freezable workqueues and that's > prefectly valid in my view. Beyond that, may suspend/resume routines > depend on the freezer to some extent, because they assume that user > space won't talk to the driver while they are being run. > > Do you mean any other kind of dependence? I still feel a bit unsure about depending on freezer as escaping them unintentionally seems a bit too easy (e.g. schedule_work() for delayed processing) and as drivers need to implement responses to PM events anyway, I think implementing the support explicitly has lesser chance of causing obscure bugs which are difficult to reproduce. Anyways, something to discuss some other day, I guess. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists