linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] kexec_file: Allow skipping checksum calculation for some segments.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160822033643.GA30937@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:36:43 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Stewart Smith <stewart@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Eric Richter <erichte@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Samuel Mendoza-Jonas <sam@...dozajonas.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] kexec_file: Allow skipping checksum calculation
 for some segments.

On 08/22/16 at 12:25am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:17:45 schrieb Dave Young:
> > On 08/18/16 at 06:09pm, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > Hello Dave,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your review!
> > > 
> > > [ Trimming down Cc: list a little to try to clear the "too many
> > > recipients"> 
> > >   mailing list restriction. ]
> > 
> > I also got "too many recipients".. Thanks for the trimming.
> 
> Didn't work though. What is the maximum number of recipients?

I have no idea as well..

> 
> > > Am Donnerstag, 18 August 2016, 17:03:30 schrieb Dave Young:
> > > > On 08/13/16 at 12:18am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > > > > Adds checksum argument to kexec_add_buffer specifying whether the
> > > > > given
> > > > > segment should be part of the checksum calculation.
> > > > 
> > > > Since it is used with add buffer, could it be added to kbuf as a new
> > > > field?
> > > 
> > > I was on the fence about adding it as a new argument to kexec_add_buffer
> > > or as a new field to struct kexec_buf. Both alternatives make sense to
> > > me. I implemented your suggestion in the patch below, what do you
> > > think?> 
> > > > Like kbuf.no_checksum, default value is 0 that means checksum is
> > > > needed
> > > > if it is 1 then no need a checksum.
> > > 
> > > It's an interesting idea and I implemented it that way, though in
> > > practice all current users of struct kexec_buf put it on the stack so
> > > the field needs to be initialized explicitly.
> > 
> > No need to set it as false because it will be initialized to 0 by
> > default?
> 
> As far as I know, variables on the stack are not initialized. Only global 
> and static variables are.

But designated initializers will do it.

Thanks
Dave