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]

Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:38:17 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.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>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: x86 setup code rewrite in C - revised

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:24:48AM -0700, Linus Torvalds 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.

The only thing questionable is that .code16gcc is arguably quite
an abuse of gcc. I even checked with some gcc developers 
and they weren't too happy about it. e.g. it's not regression
tested at all so we would be basically on our own with it.

But yes the code looks good.

-Andi

-
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/