linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clarify a usage constraint for cnt32_to

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: <AANLkTik8Jd4Q4xVZqTCw=gMP6z_ZLv=nn+zN2tVLfi1M@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2010 13:19:42 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clarify a usage constraint for cnt32_to_63()

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> wrote:
>
> The cnt32_to_63 algorithm relies on proper counter data evaluation
> ordering to work properly. This was missing from the provided
> documentation.
>
> Let's augment the documentation with the missing usage constraint and
> fix the only instance that got it wrong.

Hmm. In the meantime, mn10300 seems to have changed its get_cycles()
to count up like a normal architecture.

So I _think_ the nm10300 part of the patch should now look like the
attached. Untested. I'd like to get an ack from David or at least
somebody who compiles (and preferably tests) mn10300. And then
preferably a re-send of the whole patch.

Hmm?

                          Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (911 bytes)