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 13:59:01 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <>
To:	Benson Leung <>
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, 19 Jul 2014, Benson Leung wrote:

> > 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.

That doesn't really make sense.  If you're afraid of a device 
generating spurious wakeup events when the lid is closed, you should 
never enable it for wakeup.  After all, one of the first things that 
people often do after suspending their laptop is close the lid.

Alan Stern

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