linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ramoops: use pstore interface

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: <201111171507.00699.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:07:00 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Ben Gardner <bgardner@...tec.com>,
	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ramoops: use pstore interface

On Wednesday 16 November 2011, Kees Cook wrote:
> Instead of using /dev/mem directly, use the common pstore infrastructure
> to handle Oops gathering and extraction.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

Sounds like a very good plan to me. It probably makes sense to move the
entire driver into fs/pstore after this. Otherwise, I have only trivial
style comments:

> +static int ramoops_pstore_open(struct pstore_info *psi);
> +static int ramoops_pstore_close(struct pstore_info *psi);
> +static ssize_t ramoops_pstore_read(u64 *id, enum pstore_type_id *type,
> +				   struct timespec *time,
> +				   char **buf,
> +				   struct pstore_info *psi);
> +static int ramoops_pstore_write(enum pstore_type_id type,
> +				enum kmsg_dump_reason reason, u64 *id,
> +				unsigned int part,
> +				size_t size, struct pstore_info *psi);
> +static int ramoops_pstore_erase(enum pstore_type_id type, u64 id,
> +				struct pstore_info *psi);

Can you do it without forward declarations? Many people find code
more readable if it is structure in the natural order that avoids
these.

> +static int ramoops_pstore_close(struct pstore_info *psi)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}

Do you actually have to provide this if it's empty?

If yes, it might make sense to change the pstore code so that
it works without a close function.

	Arnd
--
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/