On Tuesday 24 March 2015 17:49:04 Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c | 211 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
Just one very high-level question: as this code is clearly derived from
the x86 version and nontrivial, could we move most of it out of
arch/{x86,arm64} into mm/kasan/init.c and have the rest in some header
file?
Arnd
On 04/09/2015 11:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2015 17:49:04 Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c | 211 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>
> Just one very high-level question: as this code is clearly derived from
> the x86 version and nontrivial, could we move most of it out of
> arch/{x86,arm64} into mm/kasan/init.c and have the rest in some header
> file?
>
I think most of this could be moved out from arch code, but not everything.
E.g. kasan_init() function is too arch-specific.
On Friday 10 April 2015 13:48:52 Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> On 04/09/2015 11:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 March 2015 17:49:04 Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> >> arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c | 211 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >
> > Just one very high-level question: as this code is clearly derived from
> > the x86 version and nontrivial, could we move most of it out of
> > arch/{x86,arm64} into mm/kasan/init.c and have the rest in some header
> > file?
> >
>
> I think most of this could be moved out from arch code, but not everything.
> E.g. kasan_init() function is too arch-specific.
Right, makes sense. So presumably, populate_zero_shadow could become a global
function by another name, and possibly also handle registering the die
handler, so you can call it from an architecture specific kasan_init()
function, right?
Arnd
On 04/10/2015 04:02 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 10 April 2015 13:48:52 Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> On 04/09/2015 11:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 24 March 2015 17:49:04 Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>>> arch/arm64/mm/kasan_init.c | 211 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just one very high-level question: as this code is clearly derived from
>>> the x86 version and nontrivial, could we move most of it out of
>>> arch/{x86,arm64} into mm/kasan/init.c and have the rest in some header
>>> file?
>>>
>>
>> I think most of this could be moved out from arch code, but not everything.
>> E.g. kasan_init() function is too arch-specific.
>
> Right, makes sense. So presumably, populate_zero_shadow could become a global
> function by another name, and possibly also handle registering the die
> handler, so you can call it from an architecture specific kasan_init()
> function, right?
>
Yep, you are right.
> Arnd
>