linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] String hash 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	25 May 2016 05:07:45 -0400
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...encehorizons.net>
To:	geert@...ux-m68k.org, linux@...encehorizons.net
Cc:	alistair.francis@...inx.com, bfields@...ldses.org,
	gerg@...ux-m68k.org, jlayton@...chiereds.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, michal.simek@...inx.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	uclinux-h8-devel@...ts.sourceforge.jp, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] String hash improvements

>> +#if defined(CONFIG_M68000) || defined(CONFIG_M68010)

> As I said before, I don't think you need this check, given HAVE_ARCH_HASH is
> selected by M68000, and M68010 doesn't exist.

I was going belt & suspenders on general principles, but yes, I'm happy
to leave it out.

I noticed that CONFIG_M68010 doesn't exist in Linus' tree, but you
recommended it, so I thought you might know something I don't.

> As you only include <asm/archhash.h> if CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_HASH
> is defined, you can also just call the arch-specific one <asm/hash.h>.

Yes, that's a possibility, too.  But weren't we still discussing whether
I should use conditional #inclusion based on a symbol, or asm-generic?

If neither of us has a killer argument that convinces the other, style
issues like this are amenable to voting, so I was going to wait a little
bit for others to chime in.

Thank you very much for the comments!