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  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, 28 Nov 2019 13:17:24 -0800
From:   Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Thing 1: Shardmap fox Ext4

On 2019-11-27 6:28 p.m., Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> The use of C++ with templates is presumably one of the "less so"
> parts, and it was that which I had in mind when I said,
> "reimplementing from scratch".

Ah, duopack and tripack. Please consider the C code that was replaced.
by those. See tons of bogus extra parameters resulting in nonsense like
this:

   set_entry(shard_entry(shard, bucket), key & bitmask(shard->lowbits), loc, next, shard->locbits, nextbits);

which in the c++ version looks like:

   *entry = {trio.pack(next, loc, key & bitmask(lowbits))};

They generate roughly identical machine code, but I know which one I prefer
to maintain. That said, porting back to C (in progress right now) includes
substituting some appropriate macro code for those sweet little variable
field width structure templates. Which by the way are central to Shardmap's
scalability and performance. These are what allow the index entry to stay
at just 8 bytes over the entire range from one entry to one billion.

So right, tripack and duopack weill be reimplemented from scratch, using 
the template code as a model. Basically just expanding the templates by
hand and adding in some macro sugar for clarity. Shardmap itself does not
need to be rewritten from scratch in order to port to kernel, far from it.

Regards,

Daniel







Powered by blists - more mailing lists