linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] scripts: Add sortextable to sort the kernel's exception table.

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, 20 Nov 2011 15:30:59 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
CC:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	ralf@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/5] scripts: Add sortextable to sort the kernel's
 exception table.

On 11/20/2011 03:28 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-11-20 at 15:26 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> If we're going to do this at build time, I would suggest using a
>> collisionless hash instead.  The lookup time for those are O(1), but
>> they definitely need to be done at build time. 
> 
> Is the lookup time really an issue?
> 

Probably not a big one (in most scenarios), but with better exception
handling it might stretch the usability of exceptions.  The bigger thing
is that once you're doing a build-time special handler for this
*anyway*, you might as well drive the cost of the lookup to functionally
zero.

	-hpa
--
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/