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: <2293886.L6VJGgjdDp@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jul 2015 01:28:20 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] suspend: delete sys_sync()

On Saturday, July 04, 2015 10:19:55 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > The only argument against dropping sys_sync() from the suspend code path
> > I've seen in this thread that I entirely agree with is that it may lead to
> > regressions, because we've done it practically forever and it may hide latent
> > bugs somewhere in block drivers etc.  Dropping it, though, is the only way
> > to see those bugs, if any, and if we want to ever fix them, we need to see
> > them.  That's why I think that it may be a good idea to allow people to
> > drop it if they are willing to accept some extra risk (via the kernel
> > command line, for example).
> 
> I'd be perfectly happy to have the sync selectable at runtime, one way 
> or another.  The three most reasonable options seem to be:
> 
> 	kernel command line
> 
> 	sysfs file
> 
> 	sysctl setting
> 
> The command line is less flexible (it can't be changed after booting).  
> Either of the other two would be fine with me.

We'll probably use a sysfs file (possibly plus a Kconfig option to set the
boot time default).

> > Moreover, question is if we really need to carry out the sync on *every*
> > suspend even if it is not pointless overall.  That shouldn't really be
> > necessary if we suspend and resume often enough or if we resume only for
> > a while and then suspend again.  Maybe it should be rate limited somehow
> > at least?
> 
> For example, skip the sync if the system has been awake for < 100 ms?

Yes, something like that.

> The cutoff time could also be controlled by the sysfs file: -1 =>
> never sync, 0 => always sync, > 0 => sync if the system has been awake 
> longer than the value.

That sounds like a good idea to me.

Thanks,
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ