linux-kernel - Re: Getting rid of freezer for suspend [was Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH] fuse: make fuse daemon frozen along with kernel threads]

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: <3538583.NDAkGLdQOZ@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:51:22 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@....de>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, Li Fei <fei.li@...el.com>,
	len.brown@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	biao.wang@...el.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	chuansheng.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: Getting rid of freezer for suspend [was Re: [fuse-devel] [PATCH] fuse: make fuse daemon frozen along with kernel threads]

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:33:45 AM Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > For shutdown in userspace there is the sendsigs.omit.d/ to avoid the
> > > > problem of halting/killing processes of the fuse filesystems (or other
> > > > services) prematurely. I guess something similar needs to be done for
> > > > freeze. The fuse filesystem has to tell the kernel what is up.
> > > 
> > > Would it be feasible to create some kind of fuse-stop-script.sh, and
> > > run it before suspend (from userspace)? It should be pretty similar to
> > > sendsigs.omit.d/ mechanism AFAICT.
> > > 
> > > I'm sorry, freezer is not too suitable for fuse.
> > > 
> > > (BTW: for suspend, we may be able to improve it so that it is possible
> > > to remove freezer from it. For hibernation, it would be very hard.)
> > 
> > Well, this is so incorrect that it's not even funny. :-(
> > 
> > The whole memory shrinking we do for hibernation is now done by allocating
> > memory, so the freezer is not necessary for *that* and there's *zero*
> > difference between suspend and hibernation with respect to why the freezer is
> > used.
> 
> Funny. Freezer was put there so that hibernation image was safe to
> write out. You need disk subsystems in workable state for hibernation.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about.  Why do you think the freezer is
necessary for that?

> > And *the* reason why it's used is that intercepting all of the possible ways
> > user space could interfere with the suspend process without the freezer is
> > simply totally impractical.  System calls (including ioctls and
> > fctls),
> 
> It is a lot of work, agreed. But runtime power management is already
> moving in that direction.

Runtime PM is a different thing.  It works on the "this device is not in use
right now, so it can be suspended" basis, while the system suspend's principle
is "I want everything to quiesce now and go low-power".  So system suspend can
trigger while devices are still in use and there are good reasons for that to
happen sometimes.

> And I could imagine introducing "big suspend lock" to be grabbed pretty much
> everywhere.

Sorry, I can't imagine *that*.

> (And IIRC n900 pretty much suspends when idle.)
>
> > sysfs accesses, /proc accesses, debugfs, to name a few, and mmap (I wonder how
> > you would handle *that* alone).  And I'm sure there's more I didn't
> > even
> 
> mmap... what is problem with mmap? For suspend, memory is powered, so
> you can permit people changing it.

Suppose mmap is used to make the registers of some device available to user
space.  Yes, that can happen.

> > So please don't tell people that something is doable while it practically
> > realisticly isn't.
> 
> I can imagine doing that for suspend, and believe we are moving in
> that direction with runtime suspend. For hibernation, we need to write
> image the image to the disk (which is the important difference, not
> memory shrinking), and "big suspend lock" would interfere with
> that. I can not imagine reasonable solution for that.

Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Once the image has been
created, it can be saved while user space is running just fine.

And that "big suspend lock" would be pretty much the same as the BKL that
people spent quite some time an effort to remove, so I don't think your idea
to reintroduce something similar just for suspend purposes would be popular.

And since the freezer is now used for other things beyond suspend and
hibernation, introducing such a lock wouldn't even address the Fuse problem.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/