linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/12] pm: at91: the standby mode uses the same sram function as the suspend to memory mode

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]

Date:	Sat, 24 Jan 2015 00:13:15 +0100
From:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.rochet@...secur.com>
Cc:	Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang@...el.com>, nicolas.ferre@...el.com,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	peda@...ntia.se, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] pm: at91: the standby mode uses the same sram
 function as the suspend to memory mode

On 23/01/2015 at 17:50:20 +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote :
> Hello Wenyou,
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:17:00PM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote:
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > index 691e6db..a1010f0 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> 
> 
> > @@ -145,62 +145,51 @@ extern void at91_slow_clock(void __iomem *pmc, void __iomem *ramc0,
> >  			    void __iomem *ramc1, int memctrl);
> >  extern u32 at91_slow_clock_sz;
> >  
> > +static void at91_pm_suspend(suspend_state_t state)
> > +{
>       (...)
> > +	slow_clock(at91_pmc_base, at91_ramc_base[0],
> > +			at91_ramc_base[1], pm_data);
> > +}
> 
> 
> > -			if (slow_clock) {
> > -				slow_clock(at91_pmc_base, at91_ramc_base[0],
> > -					   at91_ramc_base[1],
> > -					   at91_pm_data.memctrl);
>       (...)
> > +               at91_pm_suspend(state);
> 
> 
> By doing that you removed the condition "if (slow_clock)".
> 
> But slow_clock can still be NULL, see commit d2e4679, there are multiple 
> reasons which ends up with a NULL slow_clock.
> 

I would fix that by not calling suspend_set_ops(&at91_pm_ops) when
slow_clock is NULL in patch 6 (quick and easy) or copying the whole
at91_pm_sram_init() in at91_pm_init() and handle failures from there.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/