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: <20070712103056.52126a96.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:30:56 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, andi@...stfloor.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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?
> 

This code has been in -mm since 11 May, as git-newsetup.patch.  It has
caused (for what it is) astonishingly few problems.  Maybe a couple of
build glitches and one runtime failure, all quickly fixed.

I'd say it's ready.
-
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/