Hi! > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > > Since we already pass the address of restore_registers() in the image header, > we can also pass the value of the CR3 register from before the hibernation in > the same way. This will allow us to avoid using init_level4_pgt page tables > during the restore. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > @@ -253,10 +262,13 @@ int arch_hibernation_header_save(void *a > { > struct restore_data_record *rdr = addr; > > - if (max_size < sizeof(struct restore_data_record)) > + if (max_size < sizeof(*rdr)) > return -EOVERFLOW; > rdr->jump_address = restore_jump_address; > - rdr->control = (restore_jump_address ^ RESTORE_MAGIC); > + rdr->cr3 = restore_cr3; > + rdr->magic = RESTORE_MAGIC; > + rdr->crc = 0; > + rdr->crc = crc32_le(0, addr, sizeof(*rdr)); > return 0; > } No, I do not think I like that. I believe both -> control and -> crc is just useless paranoia. Bitflip in this area is not going to be any worse than bitflip anywhere else, we should not pretend this is somehow "more important". -> control should really be "protocol version"... probably should contain some field that is easy to increment. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm