linux-kernel - Re: root=PARTUUID for MBR/NT disk signatures?

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:	Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:38:39 +0400
From:	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
CC:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"cross-distro@...ts.linaro.org" <cross-distro@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: root=PARTUUID for MBR/NT disk signatures?

On 21.08.2012 08:47, Will Drewry wrote:
[]
> Functionally, I suspect this will work fine, but I am concerned that
> it is a bad move from an efficiency perspective (not unfixable
> though).  Right now, the user-supplied value is converted from
> string-uuid to packed-uuid.  This is then memcmp'd across any and all
> partitions - be it 2 or 200 - across all attached storage.  If we move
> to a pure string, then we end up needing to unpack every packed UUID
> at disk scan time (or search, depending on impl) rather than just the
> one user supplied value.
> 
> Perhaps the cost is negligible on modern machines, but it seems like
> the wrong place to put the cost (per entry rather than per search
> value).

Amount of work needed to READ all the partition tables might be
quite a bit larger than strcmp'ing it all.  I think.

/mjt
--
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/