linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Make initialization check as first one

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKFceOXHtusm9e8qQ_2_ikpFtghmp5ZD9+i9C+aF7200g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:11:59 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>
Cc:     Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Make initialization check as first one

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 6:11 PM Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com> wrote:
>
> From 4320c0fcb5d685c8099937abce88e0b7fbbfe8dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:56:48 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Make initialization check as first one
>
> Since only one single ramoops area allowed at a time, other probes
> include device tree related are meaningless, it will waste cpu
> consumtion. So let's check it firstly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>
> ---
>  fs/pstore/ram.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram.c b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> index 1adb5e3..ca01778 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> @@ -715,15 +715,6 @@ static int ramoops_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>         phys_addr_t paddr;
>         int err = -EINVAL;
>
> -       if (dev_of_node(dev) && !pdata) {
> -               pdata = &pdata_local;
> -               memset(pdata, 0, sizeof(*pdata));
> -
> -               err = ramoops_parse_dt(pdev, pdata);
> -               if (err < 0)
> -                       goto fail_out;
> -       }
> -
>         /*
>          * Only a single ramoops area allowed at a time, so fail extra
>          * probes.
> @@ -733,6 +724,15 @@ static int ramoops_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>                 goto fail_out;
>         }
>
> +       if (dev_of_node(dev) && !pdata) {
> +               pdata = &pdata_local;
> +               memset(pdata, 0, sizeof(*pdata));
> +
> +               err = ramoops_parse_dt(pdev, pdata);
> +               if (err < 0)
> +                       goto fail_out;
> +       }
> +
>         /* Make sure we didn't get bogus platform data pointer. */
>         if (!pdata) {
>                 pr_err("NULL platform data\n");
> --
> 1.9.1

Applied, thanks!

-- 
Kees Cook