From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756945AbdELAYs (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 May 2017 20:24:48 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]:33928 "EHLO mail-pg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753367AbdELAYq (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 May 2017 20:24:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:28:47 +0900 From: AKASHI Takahiro To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Daniel Wagner , David Woodhouse , rafal@milecki.pl, Arend Van Spriel , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Li, Yi" , atull@opensource.altera.com, moritz.fischer@ettus.com, Petr Mladek , Johannes Berg , Emmanuel Grumbach , Luciano Coelho , Kalle Valo , Andy Lutomirski , David Howells , Peter Jones , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] test: add new driver_data load tester Message-ID: <20170512002846.GH22134@linaro.org> Mail-Followup-To: AKASHI Takahiro , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Daniel Wagner , David Woodhouse , rafal@milecki.pl, Arend Van Spriel , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Li, Yi" , atull@opensource.altera.com, moritz.fischer@ettus.com, Petr Mladek , Johannes Berg , Emmanuel Grumbach , Luciano Coelho , Kalle Valo , Andy Lutomirski , David Howells , Peter Jones , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20170330032514.17173-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20170330032514.17173-4-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20170411083248.GE15139@linaro.org> <20170428014535.GO28800@wotan.suse.de> <20170511104625.GF22134@linaro.org> <20170511182629.GY28800@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:32:30AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > It would seems to make sense to me to only need to verify files when read > > for the first time, once its cache I don't see why we would re-verify them ? > > To be clear, the fw cache feature reads the files from the fs prior to > suspend, and then uses the in-memory cache on resume. So it would make > sense to me only to rely on fw verification on resume then when the fw > cache is used ? Good point. I was thinking of need for verification on resume. As cache is not protected and visible to the kernel, some malware might want to rewrite it :) Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > Luis