Messages in this thread | | | From | Kees Cook <> | Date | Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:52:43 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] pstore: Avoid duplicate call of persistent_ram_zap() |
| |
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 03:52:34PM +0800, Peng Wang wrote: >> When initialing prz with invalid data in buffer(no PERSISTENT_RAM_SIG), >> function call path is like this: >> >> ramoops_init_prz -> >> | >> |-> persistent_ram_new -> persistent_ram_post_init -> persistent_ram_zap >> | >> |-> persistent_ram_zap >> >> As we can see, persistent_ram_zap() is called twice. >> We can avoid this by adding an option to persistent_ram_new(), and >> only call persistent_ram_zap() when it is needed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Peng Wang <wangpeng15@xiaomi.com> >> --- >> fs/pstore/ram.c | 4 +--- >> fs/pstore/ram_core.c | 5 +++-- >> include/linux/pstore_ram.h | 1 + >> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram.c b/fs/pstore/ram.c >> index ffcff6516e89..b51901f97dc2 100644 >> --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c >> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c >> @@ -640,7 +640,7 @@ static int ramoops_init_prz(const char *name, >> >> label = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "ramoops:%s", name); >> *prz = persistent_ram_new(*paddr, sz, sig, &cxt->ecc_info, >> - cxt->memtype, 0, label); >> + cxt->memtype, PRZ_FLAG_ZAP_OLD, label); >> if (IS_ERR(*prz)) { >> int err = PTR_ERR(*prz); > > Looks good to me except the minor comment below: > >> >> @@ -649,8 +649,6 @@ static int ramoops_init_prz(const char *name, >> return err; >> } >> >> - persistent_ram_zap(*prz); >> - >> *paddr += sz; >> >> return 0; >> diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c >> index 12e21f789194..2ededd1ea1c2 100644 >> --- a/fs/pstore/ram_core.c >> +++ b/fs/pstore/ram_core.c >> @@ -505,15 +505,16 @@ static int persistent_ram_post_init(struct persistent_ram_zone *prz, u32 sig, >> pr_debug("found existing buffer, size %zu, start %zu\n", >> buffer_size(prz), buffer_start(prz)); >> persistent_ram_save_old(prz); >> - return 0; >> + if (!(prz->flags & PRZ_FLAG_ZAP_OLD)) >> + return 0; > > This could be written differently. > > We could just do: > > if (prz->flags & PRZ_FLAG_ZAP_OLD) > persistent_ram_zap(prz); > > And remove the zap from below below.
I actually rearranged things a little to avoid additional round-trips on the mailing list. :)
> Since Kees already took this patch, I can just patch this in my series if > Kees and you are Ok with this suggestion.
I've put it up here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=pstore/devel&id=ac564e023248e3f4d87917b91d12376ddfca5000
> Sorry for the delay in my RFC series, I just got back from paternity leave > and I'm catching up with email.
No worries! It's many weeks until the next merge window. :)
-- Kees Cook
| |