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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20171002145517.652p7p7q4vv5rqcc@thunk.org> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:55:17 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...inera.com> Cc: "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: ext4 build errors On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 02:23:02PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > Hi ext4 devs > > Adding the patch last in this mail cause lots of build errors in ext4, here is a few: Why did you need this patch to fix problems in VirtualBox? Cleaning this up is going to be a little tricky, because one of the implications the void * declaration in the __set_bit_le() declaration is that there isn't any particular alignment requirement with the __le functions. But the long * declaration implies that the bitmaps have to be aligned to sizeof(long). For the ext4 bitmap, we use it on bh->b_data, for which we can safely assume is long-aligned. But the mballoc buddy bitmaps use mb_set_bit() in ways that are _not_ guaranteed to be long aligned. So fixing this is going to be a bit painful, and will likely result in a performance regression for ext4. We can make our own version that open codes it as C functions --- but then we lose all of the architecture optimized bitop functions. I believe the reason why the standard bitop functions are made long * aligned is that on some BE architectures --- I suspect it was PowerPC but I'm not 100% sure about that --- the native bitop functions required a long * alignment. Fortunately all of the little endian architectures didn't have these alignment restrictions, so we could keep the __set_bit_le functions to not have any long alignment restrictions. The fact that bitop and the bitop_le functions are not the same is... inelegant, but if it represents a practical optimization that is possible on LE systems but not on BE systems (where bitop_le gets open coded in C, in an inefficient way, but oh, well, BE systems aren't for the cool kids anyway :-), I have to ask whether it's really worth it to do the cleanup. Cheers, - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists