On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:04:59PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 17 May 2016 at 14:50, Benjamin Gaignard
> wrote:
> > Hello Emil,
> >
> > thanks for your review.
> > I have understand most of your remarks and I'm fixing them
> > but some points aren't obvious for me...
> >
> Sure thing. Thanks
On 17 May 2016 at 22:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Please don't use __kernel_size_t, it's only for backwards compat if you
> already botched an ioctl definition ;-)
>
That explains why I've not seen it in (m)any other UAPI headers but
our legacy ones.
Thank you !
Emil
On 17 May 2016 at 14:50, Benjamin Gaignard
wrote:
> Hello Emil,
>
> thanks for your review.
> I have understand most of your remarks and I'm fixing them
> but some points aren't obvious for me...
>
Sure thing. Thanks for being honest.
>
> No because a device could attach itself on the buffer and
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 03:50:41PM +0200, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> 2016-05-17 0:58 GMT+02:00 Emil Velikov :
> > On 9 May 2016 at 16:07, Benjamin Gaignard
> > wrote:
> >> + * @fd:returned file descriptor
> >> + */
> >> +struct smaf_create_data {
> >> + size_t length;
> >> +
Hello Emil,
thanks for your review.
I have understand most of your remarks and I'm fixing them
but some points aren't obvious for me...
2016-05-17 0:58 GMT+02:00 Emil Velikov :
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> I'd suspect you're interested in some feedback on these, so here is a few :-)
> Sadly (ideally?) not
Hi Benjamin,
I'd suspect you're interested in some feedback on these, so here is a few :-)
Sadly (ideally?) nothing serious, but a bunch minor suggestions, plus
the odd bug.
On 9 May 2016 at 16:07, Benjamin Gaignard
wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/smaf/smaf-core.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,794 @@
>
Secure Memory Allocation Framework goal is to be able
to allocate memory that can be securing.
There is so much ways to allocate and securing memory that SMAF
doesn't do it by itself but need help of additional modules.
To be sure to use the correct allocation method SMAF implement
deferred allocat
