linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support

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: <20070525104253.GA4555@ucw.cz>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2007 10:42:54 +0000
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com>
Cc:	Richard Purdie <richard@...nedhand.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michael-Luke Jones <mlj28@....ac.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm-cc@...top.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] LZO de/compression support - take 3

Hi!

> Perhaps you have opinion of maintaining diffability with 
> original LZO
> code which differs from mine. Since the code is now just 
> ~500 lines it
> should be fair enough to have major overhauls for sake 
> of clean
> KernelStyle(tm) code. It shouldn't be that hard to 
> verify this small
> code for bugs that might have crept in during porting 
> work. As regard
> to keeping up with future LZO versions, hm.... that will 
> be hard - but
> I don't think algorithm itself will change and 
> optimizations can
> always be done separately in this fork.
> 
> >
> >> I'd agree with the proposed renaming.  In fact I'd 
> >suggest that the unsafe
> >> APIs just be removed - it's hard to imagine a 
> >situation in which they're OK
> >> to be used in the kernel.
> >
> >The compressed cache code might be one exception since 
> >it does the
> >compression itself and shouldn't get corrupted. If it 
> >does get
> >corrupted, you have bigger problems.
> >
> 
> Yes. Compressed Caching is one of cases where compressed 
> data cannot
> get magically corrupted. Hence, there is no need to go 
> for the 'safe'
> version. There might be other such cases too, so 
> removing 'unsafe'
> version is not good.

What is the performance difference between safe and unsafe version?

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/