linux-kernel - Re: x86-64: memset()/memcpy() not fully standards compliant

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: <cb775851-f769-4df0-a510-02325abbaae2@email.android.com>
Date:	Thu, 05 Jan 2012 07:27:34 -0800
From:	"hpanvin@...il.com" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de
CC:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86-64: memset()/memcpy() not fully standards compliant

Yes, I think it is probably Just A Bug.  Unless it can be shown it makes it much slower, let's fix.

Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:

>Forever these two functions have been limited to deal with at most 4G
>at a time. While I cannot point out an in-tree user that would require
>larger sizes, it is now the second time that within our Xen kernel we
>got
>bitten by that limitation. Would you nevertheless accept a patch to
>eliminate those shortcomings (iirc there may need to be workarounds
>for CPU bugs when it comes to using string instructions on such large
>blocks, albeit memmove() doesn't seem to care)?
>
>Otherwise, is there any rationale for this sort of lurking bug?
>
>Thanks, Jan

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
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/