linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 05/13] pm: at91: move the copying the sram function to the sram initializationi phase

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: <B256D81BAE5131468A838E5D7A243641BFD3A091@penmbx01>
Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:59:58 +0000
From:	"Yang, Wenyou" <Wenyou.Yang@...el.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	"Ferre, Nicolas" <Nicolas.FERRE@...el.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com" 
	<alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	"sylvain.rochet@...secur.com" <sylvain.rochet@...secur.com>,
	"peda@...ntia.se" <peda@...ntia.se>,
	"sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com" 
	<sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	"linux@...im.org.za" <linux@...im.org.za>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 05/13] pm: at91: move the copying the sram function
 to the sram initializationi phase

Hi Russell,

Thank you for your review.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux@....linux.org.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:28 PM
> To: Yang, Wenyou
> Cc: Ferre, Nicolas; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com;
> sylvain.rochet@...secur.com; peda@...ntia.se;
> sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com; linux@...im.org.za
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] pm: at91: move the copying the sram function to
> the sram initializationi phase
> 
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:43:16AM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote:
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_AT91_SLOW_CLOCK
> > -				/* copy slow_clock handler to SRAM, and call it */
> > -				memcpy(slow_clock, at91_slow_clock,
> at91_slow_clock_sz);
> > -#endif
> >  				slow_clock(at91_pmc_base, at91_ramc_base[0],
> >  					   at91_ramc_base[1],
> >  					   at91_pm_data.memctrl);
> > @@ -272,6 +268,9 @@ static void __init at91_pm_sram_init(void)
> >  	sram_pbase = gen_pool_virt_to_phys(sram_pool, sram_base);
> >  	slow_clock = __arm_ioremap_exec(sram_pbase, at91_slow_clock_sz,
> > false);
> >
> > +	/* Copy the slow_clock handler to SRAM */
> > +	memcpy(slow_clock, at91_slow_clock, at91_slow_clock_sz);
> > +
> 
> Why is this code not using the fncpy() support for copying functions.
At first, used the fncpy(), but it work not well on the some chip. I will check it again.

> Why is it not checking the return code from __arm_ioremap_exec() or
> gen_pool_virt_to_phys() for failure?
> 
> This looks like quite a massive review failure when this code was originally merged.
> It needs fixing.
I will fix it.

> 
> --
> FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
> according to speedtest.net.

Best Regards,
Wenyou Yang
--
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/