linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [0/6] kfifo fixes/improvements

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: <20091230110731.GA3050@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2009 03:07:31 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc:	Vikram Dhillon <dhillonv10@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"akpm@...l.org" <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/6] kfifo fixes/improvements

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:52:15AM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 30.12.2009, 02:43 -0800 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:29:50AM +0100, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > >
> > I do not need to try the new behavior - you explained it quite well.
> > You changed the old API to allow processing multiple records at a time
> > and it does not quite work the way you want with Andi's patch. Now the
> 
> Wrong, i did not change the behavior of the old API. It is exactly the
> same at is was!!!!

You said:

"The kfifo_in() and kfifo_out() len parameter is than in the meaning
of elements not bytes."

This is the change from the existing API which works with _bytes_:

/**
 * kfifo_in - puts some data into the FIFO
 * @fifo: the fifo to be used.
 * @from: the data to be added.
 * @len: the length of the data to be added.
 *
 * This function copies at most @len bytes from the @from buffer into
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
 * the FIFO depending on the free space, and returns the number of
 * bytes copied.


> 
> > question is: when working with _records_ does anyone really want to
> > put/get more than 1 record at a time? My answer would be "no, most users
> 
> Your answer is wrong. All current user depend on it, because it
> (miss)use a byte stream to store values other than bytes to it.

However all of them that I know of deposit and fetch exactly one record
at a time (the fact that they are more than 1 byte is immaterial).

>  
> > work with 1 record at a time". Thus your changes to the old API are not
> > needed.
> > 
> 
> A lot of hot air...

*sigh* That's an iron-clad argument right there.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/