netdev - Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] introduce ARCH_CAN_UNALIGNED

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:	Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:21:46 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	sam@...nborg.org, dsd@...too.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] introduce ARCH_CAN_UNALIGNED_ACCESS Kconfig
	symbol


> I think you're semantically testing the wrong thing.
> 
> It's not if unaligned accesses are supported, it's if they are
> efficient enough or not.
> 
> For example, sparc64 fully handles unaligned accesses but taking the
> trap to fix it up is slow.  So sparc64 "can" handle unaligned
> accesses, but whether we want to set this symbol or not is another
> matter.

Yeah, good point. Should I rename it to HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
or similar? Or have it defined as some sort of number so you can make
actually make tradeoffs? Like Dave Woodhouse suggested at some point to
have get_unaligned() take an argument that indicates the probability...

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)