linux-kernel - Re: Power-managing devices that are not of interest at some point in time

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: <3454348.ZgJ1ZIlfsF@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jul 2014 22:19:55 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
	Patrik Fimml <patrikf@...omium.org>,
	Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Power-managing devices that are not of interest at some point in time

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 11:21:52 AM Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 01:59:01 PM Alan Stern wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> That's a fair point, and I think should be done by default. But that does not 
> change what Benson said - I think if we inhibited the device it should stay 
> inhibited across system suspend, including being disabled as wakeup source 
> even if it could be enabled as such.

This seems to be the best approach to me too.

Rafael

--
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/