linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk

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: <530FEAA9.7040601@ti.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:47:21 -0800
From:	Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk

On 02/27/2014 04:09 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/27/14 15:57, Sebastian Capella wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h
>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h index 8756e4b..1079ea8 100644 ---
>> a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h +++
>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h @@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ static inline
>> void *phys_to_virt(phys_addr_t x) */ #define __pa(x)
>> __virt_to_phys((unsigned long)(x)) #define __va(x)			((void
>> *)__phys_to_virt((phys_addr_t)(x))) +#define __pa_symbol(x)
>> __pa(RELOC_HIDE((unsigned long)(x), 0))
> 
> Just curious, is there a reason for the RELOC_HIDE() here? Or 
> __pa_symbol() for that matter? It looks like only x86 uses this on
> the __nosave_{begin,end} symbol. Maybe it's copy-pasta?

>From my understanding this needs to stick around so long as gcc 3.x is
supported (did it get dropped yet?) on ARM Linux since it doesn't
support -fno-strict-overflow.

> I also wonder if anyone has thought about making a __weak 
> pfn_is_nosave() function so that architectures don't need to
> implement the same thing every time. Consolidating those shouldn't
> be part of this patch though.
> 

Yes, I think just a couple of the architectures do anything besides
checking if the address falls within the nosave section.
--
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/