linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S

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: <94a0d4530909140738t7e4d646r134cfd884da21348@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:38:32 +0300
From:	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:58:24PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:21:00AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> >> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:28:47PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> >> > > >                 bhi     __delay
>> >> > > >                 mov     pc, lr
>> >> > > >  ENDPROC(__udelay)
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > Hi
>> >> > >
>> >> > > why was this code there in the first place ?
>> >> >
>> >> > To make the delay loop more stable and predictable on older CPUs.
>> >>
>> >> So why has it been commented out, if it's needed for that?
>> >
>> > We moved on and it penalises later CPUs, leading to udelay providing
>> > shorter delays than requested.
>> >
>> > So the choice was either stable and predictable on older CPUs but
>> > buggy on newer CPUs, or correct on all CPUs but gives unnecessarily
>> > longer delays on older CPUs.
>>
>> Why not add an #ifdef CPU_V4 or whatever?
>
> Because then you get it whenever you configure for V4 as the lowest
> denominator CPU, which leads to the buggy behaviour on better CPUs.
> It's far better to leave it as is and just accept that the old CPUs
> will have longer than necessary delays.  If people really really
> care (and there's likely to only be a small minority of them now)
> changing the '0' to a '1' is a very simple change for them to carry
> in their local tree.  Unlike getting the right unrolling etc.

Well, they can also 'git revert' this patch. If somebody really cares
I think they should shout now and provide a better patch, otherwise
this one should be merged.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/