linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing runtime suspend

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]

Date:	Tue, 8 Sep 2015 22:28:36 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"Tirdea, Irina" <irina.tirdea@...el.com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <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>,
	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"Purdila, Octavian" <octavian.purdila@...el.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: runtime: Add sysfs option for forcing
 runtime suspend

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-input&m=140564626306396&w=2
>> >
>> > Purely as a matter of interest, in that email Rafael also mentioned
>> > that he and I had discussed a way to disable remote wakeup during
>> > runtime suspend.  Oddly enough, the method we decided upon was to add
>> > an "off" option to /sys/.../power/control.  :-)
>>
>> Wasn't that /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup rather?
>
> Not the way I remember.  Of course, it's possible that we misunderstood
> each other at the time.
>
>> > It would not put the device into runtime suspend immediately, like you
>> > are proposing.  Instead it would mean the same as the "auto" mode,
>> > except that remote wakeup should be disabled during runtime suspend.
>> >
>> > We never got around to implementing this, however.
>>
>> I don't think this is what we discussed then really.
>>
>> There is a fundamental problem with forcing things into runtime suspend
>> from user space, because that may happen in a wrong time.  In other words,
>> the kernel can't guarantee that the device would actually be able to go
>> into runtime suspend when requested.
>
> Exactly.  What we discussed at LinuxCon wasn't forcing things into
> runtime suspend; it was disabling remote wakeup during runtime suspend.
>
> And even though the topic was quite different from Irina's proposal, we
> ended up settling on the same API (according to my recollection).

So I remember that differently.

My idea was to add a third value to /sys/devices/.../power/wakeup (in
addition to "disabled" and "enabled") so user space can indicate that
remote wakeup should not be enabled for runtime suspend for the device
(since there's no way to indicate that today).  I don't see how
/sys/devices/.../power/control might help here to be honest.

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/