linux-kernel - Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C

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: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707121016210.20061@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc:	andi@...stfloor.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> This patch set replaces the x86 setup code, which is currently all in
> assembly, with a version written in C, using the ".code16gcc" feature
> of binutils (which has been present since at least 2001.)
>
>  76 files changed, 4606 insertions(+), 5209 deletions(-)

I can't really argue against this on any sane grounds - not only is it 
removing more lines than it adds, but moving from mostly unreadable 
assembly to C seems a good idea.

How does this impact the size of that code? Do we even care?

But as to how to integrate it, I'm not sure I really want to just merge 
it. I suspect we would want to have it in some public tree that people 
actually test at least to some degree first, and the -mm tree seems to 
make most sense.

I didn't see anything objectionable in the series, although I do think the 
explanations need to be re-done for a number of them. You seem to have 
violated the "a single line to explain the patch at the top" rule, and as 
a result they make no sense for some of them (the explanation for patch 
05/33 doesn't parse for me and 07/33 seems to have the single-line 
problem)

So let's just get this merged. But the question is, do we put it in 
2.6.23-rc1, or do we put it in -mm for a few weeks, which would imply 
waiting for the next merge window? Andrew?

			Linus
-
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/