linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:59:12 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
CC:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup

Rene Herman wrote:
> In your opinion, is the attached (versus 2.6.20-rc3) better? This uses
> probe_kernel_address() for all accesses. Or rather, an expanded
> version thereof. The set_fs() and pagefault_{disable,enable} calls are
> only done once in probe_roms().
>
> Accessing the length byte at rom[2] with __get_user() is overkill
> after just checking the signature at 0 and 1 but direcly accessing
> only that makes for inconsistent code IMO. It's only a .fixup entry...
>
> I can't say I'm all that sure that that pagefault_disable() call is
> still applicable now that it got expanded into the probe_roms() stage? 

I don't think this is worthwhile.  Its hardly a performance-critical
piece of code, and I think its better to use the straightforward
interface rather than complicating it for some nominal extra efficiency.

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