From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752774AbcHVDpn (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Aug 2016 23:45:43 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:34509 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751736AbcHVDpm (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Aug 2016 23:45:42 -0400 X-IBM-Helo: d24dlp01.br.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Dave Young Cc: Stewart Smith , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Baoquan He , Michael Ellerman , Balbir Singh , x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Eric Richter , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Thomas Gleixner , Samuel Mendoza-Jonas , Mimi Zohar , Andrew Morton , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] kexec_file: Allow skipping checksum calculation for some segments. Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:45:31 -0300 User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.13.0-93-generic; KDE/4.14.13; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160822033643.GA30937@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> References: <1471058305-30198-1-git-send-email-bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <3959832.c4ESAKX1ch@hactar> <20160822033643.GA30937@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16082203-1523-0000-0000-00000216E2E4 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16082203-1524-0000-0000-000027FCF092 Message-Id: <2442665.06xGC9PLW9@hactar> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-08-22_01:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1608220040 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 22 August 2016, 11:36:43 schrieb Dave Young: > 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. Ah, you are right! I'll provide an updated patch then. Thanks for your suggestion. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center