linux-kernel - Re: [systemd-devel] [WIP PATCH 0/4] Rework the unreliable LID switch exported by ACPI

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: <1497910127.2559.1.camel@hadess.net>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 00:08:47 +0200
From:   Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>
To:     "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
        Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@...-t.net>,
        Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
        "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>, Lv Zheng <zetalog@...il.com>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "systemd-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" 
        <systemd-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [WIP PATCH 0/4] Rework the unreliable LID
 switch exported by ACPI

On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 01:43 +0000, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> <snip>
> > 
> > If you implement it in such a way that GNOME settings daemon
> > behaves weirdly, you'll get my revert
> > request in the mail. Do. Not. Ever. Lie.
> 
> First, I don't know what should be reverted...
> I have 2 solutions here for review, and Benjamin has 1.
> And none of them has been upstreamed.
> We are just discussing.

The discussion is getting tiring quite frankly. We've been over this
for nearly a year now, and with no end in sight.

> However we need to get 1 of them upstreamed in next cycle.
> 
> I think users won't startup gnome-setting-daemon right after resume.
> It should have already been started.
> 
> There is only 1 platform may see delayed state update after resume.
> Let's see if there is a practical issue.
> 1. Before suspend, the "lid state" is "close", and
> 2. After resume, the state might remain "close" for a while
>    Since libinput won't deliver close to userspace,
>    and gnome-setting-daemon listens to key switches, there is no
> wrong behavior.

It doesn't. It listens to UPower, which tells user-space whether there
is a lid switch, and whether it's opened or closed.

> 3. Then after several seconds, "open" arrives.
>    gnome-setting-daemon re-arrange monitors and screen layouts in
> response to the new event.

Just how is anyone supposed to know that there is an event coming?

> So there is no problem. IMO, there is no need to improve for post-
> resume case.
> 
> Users will just startup gnome-setting-daemon once after boot.
> And it's likely that when it is started, the state is correct.

You cannot rely on when gnome-settings-daemon will be started to make
*any* decision. Certainly not decisions on how the kernel should
behave.

> IMO, there might be a chance to improve for post-boot case using
> Benjamin's approach.