Hi,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 09:56:54PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > What's the progress of this patch? Looks already have experts review
> > > > > it.
> > > > > Why this patch didn't accept?
> > > > This patch is a little overkilled, and I have saved another simpler
> > > > version to only check the md5 hash (as people suggested) for it. I can
> > > > post it later.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am happy to test and review it.
> > >
> > Here it is. As Rafael is on travel, it would be grateful
> > if you can give some advance on this, thanks!
>
> Better than last one.
>
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + req = ahash_request_alloc(tfm, GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> what context is this called from? GFP_ATOMIC allocations like to fail...
>
It is in normal process context, OK, I'll change it to GFP_KERNEL.
> > +static int hibernation_e820_check(void *buf)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + char result[MD5_HASH_SIZE] = {0};
> > +
> > + ret = get_e820_md5(&e820_saved, result);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (memcmp(result, buf, MD5_HASH_SIZE))
> > + e820_conflict = true;
>
> Passing return value using global variable is ugly. Can you just print
> the warning and kill the box here?
Do you mean get rid of the panic hooker and just print the warning here?
> > +
>
> > + /*
> > + * A page has been allocated previously to store the hibernation
> > + * image header, so we can safely store the md5 result behind
> > + * struct restore_data_record, with size of 128 bytes.
> > + */
> > + hibernation_e820_save(addr + sizeof(struct restore_data_record));
> > +
>
> Please just allocate space in struct restore_data_record . And I don't
> think md5 sum is 128 _bytes_.
>
OK. The md5 sum should be 128 bits thus 16 bytes.
Thanks!
Yu
