linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 0/5] pstore: Use zstd directly by default for compression

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 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:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:10:53 -0300
From:   "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Nick Terrell <terrelln@...com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] pstore: Use zstd directly by default for compression

On 18/10/2022 05:20, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> [...]
> So again, I suggest to simply drop this non-feature, and standardize
> on either zlib or zstd using the library interface exclusively. If
> someone present a compelling use case, we can always consider adding
> it back in some form.
> 
> As for the choice of algorithm, given the equal performance using the
> default compression level, and the difference in code size, I don't
> see why zstd should be preferred here. If anything, it only increases
> the likelihood of hitting another error if we are panicking due to
> some memory corruption issue.

I think it's a good argument - would zlib be simpler in code than zstd?
I've checked the zstd patch from Kees - not complex per se, but would be
great if we could have a simple mechanism, without the need of the ifdef
there for example...

Cheers,


Guilherme