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  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:	Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:23:36 -0700
From:	Benson Leung <>
To:	Alan Stern <>
Cc:	Dmitry Torokhov <>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	Patrik Fimml <>,
	Bastien Nocera <>,,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: Power-managing devices that are not of interest at some point in time

On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Alan Stern <> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> > The area where it must interact with power management is wakeup, both remote
>> > wakeup at run time and wakeup from system suspend.  In particular, there's
>> > the question whether or not a device ignoring its input should be regarded
>> > as a wakeup source.
>> I'd say no.
> This raises an interesting question.  Suppose the system gets suspended
> while the lid is closed.  At that point, shouldn't wakeup devices be
> enabled, even if they were already inhibited?

It's possible that this could be a policy decision, ie, whether
power/wakeup is set to enabled for those devices or not.
However, I'd say that there's only one policy that makes sense in that
case : wakeups should be disabled while suspended.

If we inhibited the device during runtime to prevent stray input
events from being generated, it wouldn't make sense to allow the
device to potentially generate an accidental wakeup while suspended.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists