| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:26:13 -0700 From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> To: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: FRV/ARM unaligned access question David, Russell, I noticed that frv/arm are the only two arches that currently use open-coded byteshifting routines for both the cpu endianness and the other endianness whereas just about all the other arches use a packed-struct version for the cpu-endian and then the byteshifting versions (lifted from arm) for the other endianness. For frv, this was due to the consolidation of unaligned access helpers which removed the assembly version. For ARM, I think it was done this way as the kernel could be compiled for either endianness and so it was just easiest to always have the byteshifting versions around. >>From the comments in the ARM version, time was spent to make sure the byteshifting helpers used a small amount or registers. Was there a known problem with the packed-struct implementation on ARM that made you choose to use byte-shifting or was it just done this way to more easily support compiling for different endianness? If there isn't an issue I'm missing, could ARM/FRV move over to the packed-struct version? Cheers, Harvey -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists