Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 3/4] Hibernation: Pass CR3 in the image header on x86_64

[Pavel Machek]

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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/