linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 07 Jan 2007 10:02:23 +0100
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup

On 01/07/2007 09:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> Rene Herman wrote:

>> In your opinion, is the attached (versus 2.6.20-rc3) better? This
>> uses probe_kernel_address() for all accesses. Or rather, an
>> expanded version thereof. The set_fs() and
>> pagefault_{disable,enable} calls are only done once in
>> probe_roms().
> 
> I don't think this is worthwhile.  Its hardly a performance-critical 
> piece of code, and I think its better to use the straightforward 
> interface rather than complicating it for some nominal extra
> efficiency.

How is it for efficiency? I thought it was for correctness. romsignature 
is using probe_kernel_adress() while all other accesses to the ROMs 
there aren't.

If nothing else, anyone reading that code is likely to ask himself the 
very same question -- why the one, and not the others.

Rene.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/