linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [0/6] kfifo fixes/improvements

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:52:15 +0100
From:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	Vikram Dhillon <dhillonv10@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...l.org" <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/6] kfifo fixes/improvements

Am Mittwoch, den 30.12.2009, 02:43 -0800 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:29:50AM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> >
> I do not need to try the new behavior - you explained it quite well.
> You changed the old API to allow processing multiple records at a time
> and it does not quite work the way you want with Andi's patch. Now the

Wrong, i did not change the behavior of the old API. It is exactly the
same at is was!!!!

> question is: when working with _records_ does anyone really want to
> put/get more than 1 record at a time? My answer would be "no, most users

Your answer is wrong. All current user depend on it, because it
(miss)use a byte stream to store values other than bytes to it.
 
> work with 1 record at a time". Thus your changes to the old API are not
> needed.
> 

A lot of hot air... Better you check the code before complain.

Stefani


--
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/