| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110703174616.GB26790@elf.ucw.cz> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 19:46:16 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] [PATCH] include storage keys in hibernation image. Hi! > > I think, however, that we really should try to merge them. The only > > difference seems to be how the additionally allocated pages will be populated > > and what's going to happen to their contents during restore. > > > > ACPI will simply copy the NVS memory to those pages, while S390 will save > > the relevant storage key bits in there. > > One complication to keep in mind is that we need to know which storage key > goes to which page frame. We need something like the orig_bm/copy_bm or > we'd have to store the pfn with the key. Simply storing the key for every > page will make the array unnecessarily big. How big is the overhead? In percent / in megabytes? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists