linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Standardize x86_64's desc_defs.h in preparation for exposure to i386.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <1184759085.10380.137.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:44:45 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
Cc:	lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm-devel <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Standardize x86_64's desc_defs.h in preparation
	for exposure to i386.

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 11:03 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 05:22:34PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > However, the currently (i386-derived) x86-64 ones are suboptimal.  The
> 
> In what way are they suboptimal? 

This was badly worded.  They're "suboptimal" for use by i386 (ie. they
clash with the i386 declaration and they'd need lots of casts to convert
the code).

Of course, treating them as 2 32-bit values on x86-64 *is* suboptimal,
and this patch helps that, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

> They seem to work just fine.

Yep.   But my first attempt was to simply #include
<asm-x86_64/desc_defs.h> from asm-i386, and that doesn't work fine 8(

Thanks,
Rusty.

-
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/