linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blackfin checksum annotations

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: <20080427124247.GV5882@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:42:47 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, cooloney@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blackfin checksum annotations

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 01:16:23PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:

> I don't think such arch specific patches should go in via net-2.6.
> You did that for a very similar patch for s390 and it was subtly broken:
> 
> See:
> f994aae1bd8e4813d59a2ed64d17585fe42d03fc
> ("[NET]: S390 checksum annotations and cleanups.")
> 
> and
> 
> afbc1e994ddcf3b6fe2dc928ee8dc31a5d0c3118
> ("[S390] Fix TCP/UDP pseudo header checksum computation.")

I remember, and AFAICT this one is safe - here everything stays within
C and type changes ought to be equivalent transformations.  Said that,
I do _NOT_ have hardware in question and it's completely untested at
runtime.

Al, who really couldn't care less which tree that goes through - up to
davem and blackfin maintainers; both are on Cc, so...
--
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/