On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:42:47PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > The easy way, and the way that I think I prefer, would be to just have a > sync notifier_block for this, just like we have with > register_pm_notifier(). From my perspective, it'd be simplest to just > piggy back on the already existing PM notifier with an extra event, > PM_POST_VMFORK, which would join the existing set of 7, following > PM_POST_RESTORE. I think that'd be coherent. However, if the PM people > don't want to play ball, we could always come up with our own > notifier_block. But I don't see the need. Plus, WireGuard *already* > uses the PM notifier for clearing keys, so code-wise for my use case, > that'd amount adding another case for PM_POST_VMFORK, in addition to the > currently existing PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE and PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE cases, > which all would be treated the same way. Ezpz. So if that sounds like an > interesting thing to the PM people, I think I'd like to propose a patch > for that, possibly even for 5.18, given that it'd be very straight- > forward. A notifier block like this makes sense, but why tie onto the PM_ stuff? This isn't power management issues, it's a system-wide change that I am sure others will want to know about that doesn't reflect any power changes. As much as I hate adding new notifiers in the kernel, that might be all you need here. thanks, greg k-h
