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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:36:43 +0800 From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com> To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Stewart Smith <stewart@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Eric Richter <erichte@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Samuel Mendoza-Jonas <sam@...dozajonas.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] kexec_file: Allow skipping checksum calculation for some segments. On 08/22/16 at 12:25am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:17:45 schrieb Dave Young: > > On 08/18/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > Hello Dave, > > > > > > Thanks for your review! > > > > > > [ Trimming down Cc: list a little to try to clear the "too many > > > recipients"> > > > mailing list restriction. ] > > > > I also got "too many recipients".. Thanks for the trimming. > > Didn't work though. What is the maximum number of recipients? I have no idea as well.. > > > > Am Donnerstag, 18 August 2016, 17:03:30 schrieb Dave Young: > > > > On 08/13/16 at 12:18am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > > > Adds checksum argument to kexec_add_buffer specifying whether the > > > > > given > > > > > segment should be part of the checksum calculation. > > > > > > > > Since it is used with add buffer, could it be added to kbuf as a new > > > > field? > > > > > > I was on the fence about adding it as a new argument to kexec_add_buffer > > > or as a new field to struct kexec_buf. Both alternatives make sense to > > > me. I implemented your suggestion in the patch below, what do you > > > think?> > > > > Like kbuf.no_checksum, default value is 0 that means checksum is > > > > needed > > > > if it is 1 then no need a checksum. > > > > > > It's an interesting idea and I implemented it that way, though in > > > practice all current users of struct kexec_buf put it on the stack so > > > the field needs to be initialized explicitly. > > > > No need to set it as false because it will be initialized to 0 by > > default? > > As far as I know, variables on the stack are not initialized. Only global > and static variables are. But designated initializers will do it. Thanks Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists