Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 May 2016 17:17:01 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] SMAF: add fake secure module | From | Benjamin Gaignard <> |
| |
2016-05-17 1:10 GMT+02:00 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>: > Hi Benjamin, > > On 9 May 2016 at 16:07, Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org> wrote: >> This module is allow testing secure calls of SMAF. >> > "Add fake secure module" does sound like something not (m)any people > want to hear ;-) > Have you considered calling it 'dummy', 'test' or similar ?
"test" is better name, I will change to that
> > >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/drivers/smaf/smaf-fakesecure.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ >> +/* >> + * smaf-fakesecure.c >> + * >> + * Copyright (C) Linaro SA 2015 >> + * Author: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org> for Linaro. >> + * License terms: GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2 >> + */ >> +#include <linux/module.h> >> +#include <linux/slab.h> >> +#include <linux/smaf-secure.h> >> + >> +#define MAGIC 0xDEADBEEF >> + >> +struct fake_private { >> + int magic; >> +}; >> + >> +static void *smaf_fakesecure_create(void) >> +{ >> + struct fake_private *priv; >> + >> + priv = kzalloc(sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > Missing ENOMEM handling ? > >> + priv->magic = MAGIC; >> + >> + return priv; >> +} >> + >> +static int smaf_fakesecure_destroy(void *ctx) >> +{ >> + struct fake_private *priv = (struct fake_private *)ctx; > You might want to flesh this cast into a (inline) helper and use it throughout ? > > > ... and that is all. Hope these were useful, or at the very least not > utterly wrong, suggestions :-) > > > Regards, > Emil > > P.S. From a quick look userspace has some subtle bugs/odd practises. > Let me know if you're interested in my input.
Your advices are welcome for userspace too
Thanks Benjamin
-- Benjamin Gaignard
Graphic Working Group
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |