linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] thermal/debugfs: Do not extend mitigation episodes beyond system resume

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h1OdEmrQr1EQz6ucX4cA65W1BmjS8pSRnVPuVcrCCAAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:35:19 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, 
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] thermal/debugfs: Do not extend mitigation episodes
 beyond system resume

On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:39 PM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/06/2024 13:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:28 AM Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 28/05/2024 16:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >>>
> >>> Because thermal zone handling by the thermal core is started from
> >>> scratch during resume from system-wide suspend, prevent the debug
> >>> code from extending mitigation episodes beyond that point by ending
> >>> the mitigation episode currently in progress, if any, for each thermal
> >>> zone.
> >>
> >> Why it is done at resume time and not at suspend time ?
> >
> > Because it is related to thermal_zone_device_init() which also runs at
> > the resume time, so IMV it's better to keep these two pieces together.
> >
> > Why would it be better to run this during suspend?
>
>  From a logical point of view, it makes more sense to cancel something
> at suspend time rather than resume. That prevents future readers to be
> puzzled by an action done in an unexpected place.
>
> Technically speaking there is no difference if it is done during suspend
> or resume. Well... we want to prevent actions to be done at resume time
> in order to not increase the resume duration but I'm not sure this code
> is doing a big difference.
>
> If you want to keep it as is, feel free to add my:
>
> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>

I will, thank you!

And thanks for all of the other ACKs.