linux-kernel - Re: [x86] Unify semaphore_32.S and rwlock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B57F421.4070409@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:28:49 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [x86] Unify semaphore_32.S and rwlock_64.S

On 01/20/2010 04:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/20/2010 03:57 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
> 
> I'm somewhat unhappy about that notion, mostly because it means Yet
> Another Thing To Verify[TM].  I would like to look at the relative code
> sizes of 2^31 and 2^30, however, if all it means is that *one*
> instruction in *one* asm has to be different, I'd rather leave it at 2^31.
> 

Well, there is no size difference within measurable limits (an
x86-64-allyesconfig build is 60(!) bytes larger with 2^31 and the incl,
but that's well within the good luck/bad luck with alignments threshold...)

As such, I'd personally prefer to leave it with 1:31:31:1 split, if
nothing else because it reads a bit tidier to me, despite the minor wart
for the incl trick.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/