linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kexec: Provide arch_kexec_protect(unprotect)

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: <20160108084741.GB6295@dhcp-128-25.nay.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:47:41 +0800
From:	Minfei Huang <mhuang@...hat.com>
To:	Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] kexec: Provide
 arch_kexec_protect(unprotect)_crashkres()

On 01/08/16 at 10:33am, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> +
> +static int
> +kexec_mark_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, bool protect)
> +{
> +	struct page *page;
> +	unsigned int nr_pages;
> +
> +	/* For physical range: [start, end] */
> +	if (!end || start > end)
> +		return 0;

This test !end is hard to be understood without the annotation. It is
better to add the comment about it.

Otherwise it looks good for me.

Thanks
Minfei