| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <46C07293.5090405@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:02:43 +0200 From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> To: sk malik <srikrishanmalik@...oo.co.in> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: why use memcpy when memmove is there? sk malik wrote: > memcpy copies a part of memory to some other location > but It will not work for all cases of overlapping > blocks.(if the start of destination block falls > between the source block) > > while memove copes with overlapping areas. > > then why is memcpy present in the sources can't we > simply do > > "#define memcpy memmove" in include/linux/string.h > > or am I missing something? The restriction that memcpy is undefined for overlapping areas (IOW, is only defined for non-overlapping areas) can be used for optimizations in memcpy which are not possible in memmove. An example, I suppose: http://lxr.linux.no/source/arch/m68k/lib/string.c#L79 http://lxr.linux.no/source/arch/m68k/lib/string.c#L146 -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =--- -==-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists