On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Anton Vorontsov anton.vorontsov@linaro.org wrote:
Hello Kees,
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 03:21:17PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: [...]
- buf = cxt->virt_addr + (id * cxt->record_size);
- memset(buf, '\0', cxt->record_size);
- persistent_ram_free_old(cxt->przs[id]);
Hm, I don't think persistent_ram_free_old() is what's wanted here. That appears to entirely release the region? I want to make sure the memory is cleared first. And will this area come back on a write, or does it stay released?
It just releases ECC-restored memory region (a copy). The original (persistent) region is still fully reusable after that call.
Ah-ha, okay. So this still needs to clear the memory in the "real" copy then. Thanks for the clarification.
- }
- for (i = 0; i < cxt->max_count; i++) {
- size_t sz = cxt->record_size;
- phys_addr_t start = cxt->phys_addr + sz * i;
- cxt->przs[i] = persistent_ram_new(start, sz, 0);
persistent_ram_new() is marked as __init, so this is unsafe to call if built as a module. I think persistent_ram_new() will need to lose the __init marking, or I'm misunderstanding something.
Um. ramoops' probe routine is also __init. persistent_ram_new is a part of ramoops module, so their __init functions will be discarded at the same time.
ram_console can't be a module, so it is also fine.
So I think it's all fine.
This is what I get for staring at patches instead of applying them. :) Yeah, if it's all built together, it's no problem. It looked to me like they were in different modules.
+fail_przs:
- for (i = 0; cxt->przs[i]; i++)
- persistent_ram_free(cxt->przs[i]);
This can lead to a BUG, since persistent_ram_free() doesn't handle NULL arguments.
The for loop has 'cxt->przs[i]' condition. :-)
Okay, fair enough. :)
Thanks for the review!
Sure thing! Thanks for doing this work; I'm excited to have access in ramoops to the new interfaces. :)
-Kees