linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] PM: Support aborting sleep during filesystem sync

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: <CAJZ5v0g_HXQjWfp=L0KetRCHMTD=QsP3wJKNZnadJic2yccCUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 20:22:46 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Samuel Wu <wusamuel@...gle.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, 
	Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] PM: Support aborting sleep during filesystem sync

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 12:37 AM Samuel Wu <wusamuel@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 11:51 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 8:30 PM Samuel Wu <wusamuel@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > >
> > > Just a friendly ping on this patch. Please let me know if there's any
> > > feedback or if you'd like me to make any changes.
> >
> > Have you seen https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250909065836.32534-1-tuhaowen@uniontech.com/
> > ?
> >
> > If so, what do you think about it?
>
> I was following this chain
> (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250908024655.14636-1-tuhaowen@uniontech.com/),
> where there is some ongoing discussion on converging the solution.
>
> Our changes aren't mutually exclusive, and tuhaowen can build changes
> on top of ours, even indicating:
> > I'm happy to work on this as a follow-up patch series after your changes land, or we could explore a unified solution that handles both scenarios.

That's fair.

> These patchsets don't negate each other, so could we decouple these
> two patchsets since they address different issues?

Well, I'm not sure if they are really different.  After all, this is
all about avoiding having to wait on an excessively long filesystem
sync during suspend.

I'm also not sure why it is being pursued to be honest.  Is setting
/sys/power/sync_on_suspend to 0 not regarded as a viable option?