linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ubi: kill homegrown endian macros

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20070517210319.GT4095@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2007 22:03:19 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	dedekind@...radead.org, hch@....de, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubi: kill homegrown endian macros

On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:56:24PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:50:43 +0300
> 
> > Well, I see the good side of your change - no home-brewed media<->cpu
> > things. Fair enough and nice. But why don't you make __be32 a struct
> > (just like I do) so that compiler could complain then?
> 
> structs get passed on the stack instead of via registers, regardless
> of size, when passed as arguments on some architectures, so there is a
> terrible performance cost of doing things that way

BTW, the lack of home-grown coversions is not a benefit - it's _nice_ to
have protections against mixing be32 and ubi32, etc.  Avoiding the mess
with struct, OTOH, *is* a benefit.

So I'd rather go with independent bitwise types and conversions done by
use of be... ones + force-cast.  The rest of ubi code remain unchanged.
-
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/