linux-kernel - Re: better patch for linux/bitops.h

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:	Wed, 4 May 2016 23:50:28 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, John Denker <jsd@...n.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@...il.com>,
	cryptography@...edaemon.net, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: better patch for linux/bitops.h

Instead of arguing over who's "sane" or "insane", can we come up with
a agreed upon set of tests, and a set of compiler and compiler
versions for which these tests must achieve at least *working* code?
Bonus points if they achieve optimal code, but what's important is
that for a wide range of GCC versions (from ancient RHEL distributions
to bleeding edge gcc 5.x compilers) this *must* work.

>From my perspective, clang and ICC producing corret code is a very
nice to have, but most shops I know of don't yet assume that clang
produces code that is trustworthy for production systems, although it
*is* great for as far as generating compiler warnings to find
potential bugs.

But instead of arguing over what works and doesn't, let's just create
the the test set and just try it on a wide range of compilers and
architectures, hmmm?

						- Ted