linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/30] Add x86-specific parity functions

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:	Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:55:51 +0800
From:	Zeng Zhaoxiu <zhaoxiu.zeng@...il.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	zengzhaoxiu@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, dvlasenk@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dvyukov@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/30] Add x86-specific parity functions

在 2016年04月06日 18:53, Borislav Petkov 写道:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:37:37AM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> Even that would still be wrong for the smaller parity values. The CPU
>> supports 8bit parity directly going back to the 8086 so the
>> implementation for 8bit and I think 16bit is still wrong.
> I was objecting to the unnecessary replication of the hweight/popcnt
> glue.
>
> And yes, one could look up the definition of the parity flag on x86 and
> then base the implementation of all those smaller ones on that as the
> hardware does it for one practically for free there.
>
> :-)
>

SETcc (SETPO etc.) added since 80386, is this a problem?