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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:38:39 +0200 From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, 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 Tue, 18 Oct 2022 at 16:11, Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@...lia.com> wrote: > > 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 think it should be rather straight-forward. Note that this is what we had before 2016 when all the 'features' were starting to get added. > 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists