linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] char drivers: ramoops record

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: <4E0A0C90.2010305@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:17:04 +0200
From:	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To:	Sergiu Iordache <sergiu@...gle.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] char drivers: ramoops record_size module parameter

Il 28/06/2011 18:38, Sergiu Iordache ha scritto:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Marco Stornelli
> <marco.stornelli@...il.com>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2011/6/28 Sergiu Iordache<sergiu@...omium.org>:
>>> The size of the dump is currently set using the RECORD_SIZE macro which
>>> is set to a page size. This patch makes the record size a module
>>> parameter and allows it to be set through platform data as well to allow
>>> larger dumps if needed.
>>>
>>> Change-Id: Ie6bd28a898dab476abf34decb0eecc42122f17ce
>>> Signed-off-by: Sergiu Iordache<sergiu@...omium.org>
>>> ---
>>
>> the idea can be valid, but you have to add some check to set the
>> record size. It'd be better to add a lower and upper bound and to
>> check for it's power of two.
>
> That sounds like a good idea. Since the memory size gets rounded to a
> power of two it would probably be more consistent to round down the
> record size as well. This way you would be sure that mem_size is a
> multiple of record size as well. The upper bound would be the memory
> size, which is already checked. I'm not sure whether it would be a
> good idea to add lower bound different from record_size != 0 (I don't
> know why someone would need to dump 8 bytes for example but is there a
> reason to limit it?)
>
> Sergiu
>

I meant to use (as at the moment) min 4k for record size and so min 4k 
for mem_size.

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