linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] kgdb light, v5

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:	Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:39:34 +0100
From:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
To:	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] kgdb light, v5

Ray Lee wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2008 8:36 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>> +       } else if ((count == 8) && (((long)mem & 7) == 0)) {
>> +               u64 tmp_ll;
>> +               if (probe_kernel_address(mem, tmp_ll))
>> +                       return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +
>> +               mem += 8;
>> +#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 60) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 56) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 52) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 48) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 44) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 40) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 36) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 32) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 28) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 24) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 20) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 16) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 12) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 8) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 4) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[tmp_ll & 0xf];
>> +#else
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 4) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[tmp_ll & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 12) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 8) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 20) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 16) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 28) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 24) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 36) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 32) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 44) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 40) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 52) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 48) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 60) & 0xf];
>> +               *buf++ = hexchars[(tmp_ll >> 56) & 0xf];
>> +#endif
> 
> Am I missing something? (I'm due, so it's not really a rhetorical
> question :-) .) Wouldn't
> 
> unsigned int void u64_to_hex(u64 val, unsigned char *buf)
> {
>          int i;
>          for (i=15; i>=0; i--) {
>                   buf[i] = hexchars[ val & 0x0f ];
>                   val >>= 4;
>          }
>          return 16;
> }
> ...
>          buf += u64_to_hex(cpu_to_be64(tmp_ll), buf);
> 
> be clearer both visually, and code-as-intent? (And equivalent helpers
> for u32, u16 -- though they could all be rolled into one.)

Yes, will come, I just produced some ETOOMANYCHANGESATONCE issue while
improving this. The code goes down by more than 150 lines!

Jan


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (255 bytes)