| 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: <482AF60F.5050002@grupopie.com> Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:24:15 +0100 From: Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com> To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> CC: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kallsyms: fix potential overflow in binary search Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Paulo Marques <pmarques@...popie.com> wrote: >>> This will probably never trigger... but it won't hurt to be careful. >> Not "probably", this will never trigger _period_. If you ever have more >> than 2^31 symbols in the kernel's kallsyms table you'll have worse problems >> to worry about than the binary search overflowing. >> >> So, I don't think it is worth this des-optimization at all... > > Yes it is. It serves as correct reference code and the > "deoptimization" is not measurable. Hum? "reference code"? in the middle of a kallsyms function? And are you really worried about contiguous arrays that are bigger than 2^31 elements? What kind of kernel structure would that be? The fact that the "deoptimization" isn't measurable isn't an excuse for unnecessary bloat. This all seems like a wild goose chase to me... -- Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com "To be, or not to be? That is ..... liable to be removed at -O2 and above." -- 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