On Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:28, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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.
OK
Perhaps I'll just remove the crc field. What do you think?
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
