> > > +
> > > + ret = tboot_pre_stack_switch();
> > > + if (!ret) {
> > > + tboot_switch_stack_call(tboot_do_suspend_lowlevel_call,
> > > + (u64)new_stack_ptr);
> >
> > ...and here you add requirements to suspend_lowlevel that were not
> > there before. ("May not act on unchecksummed memory"), without
> > documenting them.
>
> Really the only requirement is (as discussed in the previous thread) that it only use code and data within [_text, _end - _text]--do you think that this really needs to be called out? do_suspend_lowlevel() is a very simple function that has just the one (resume path) call to another simple function--it doesn't seem likely that it would violate this.
>
Resume code is already pretty tricky, and you add yet another layer of
trickery. Yes, it needs to be properly documented.
And... how does it interact with restore_processor_state? I don't
think do_suspend_lowlevel is as simple as you think...
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
