Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

[Matthew Garrett]

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 04:35:13PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:

> appropriately; that's not the case.
> 
> 1) Install a bad application that requests PM permissions and is granted those
> 
> In this case you've gained nothing with user-space suspend blockers.

It's clearly possible for a pathological Android application to destroy 
the power management policy. But to do that, the author would have to 
explicitly take a wakelock. That's difficult to do by accident. The 
various failure modes that exist in a non-wakelock world can be 
triggered in a wide variety of ways by accident. A sufficiently 
reductionist viewpoint will equate the two situations, but in the real 
world they're clearly different.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/