Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] SMAF: add fake secure module

[Benjamin Gaignard]

2016-05-17 1:10 GMT+02:00 Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> On 9 May 2016 at 16:07, Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog