linux-kernel - Re: Inflation of vmlinux by linker on x86

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:	Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:50:11 +0200
From:	Joris van Rantwijk <jorispubl@...all.nl>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Inflation of vmlinux by linker on x86_64

On 26 sep 2008, at 20:52, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Instead of adding a comment like this, we should simply rename it 
> memmove().

Yes. I tried, but it clashed with an existing memmove declaration in 
asm-x86/string_32.h.

What is the accepted solution for this?
Redefining memmove should be allowed, but then it could no longer be a 
static function.
Using the memmove implementation from the main kernel would be painful 
and ugly.
We could also define "__memmove()" plus "#define memmove __memmove", 
which would also be ugly.

> Furthermore, we probably spend enough time copying that using a real 
> memmove() implementation, using string instructions, would be good.

Are string instructions that much faster?
We can also get some speedup by copying ints instead of chars.

Joris.

--
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/