linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xz: make use of BCJ filter also for 32-bit x86 kernel

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]

Date:	Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:51:35 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Lasse Collin" <lasse.collin@...aani.org>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xz: make use of BCJ filter also for 32-bit x86
 kernel

>>> On 19.03.12 at 13:36, Lasse Collin <lasse.collin@...aani.org> wrote:
> On 2012-03-19 Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 16.03.12 at 19:47, Lasse Collin <lasse.collin@...aani.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> > On 2012-03-15 Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> The ARCH value for 32-bit x86 is not x86, but i?86.
>> > 
>> > Thanks for noticing this. Is ARCH even the correct variable to use?
>> > Maybe SRCARCH would be better. Then it would be enough to test for
>> > x86, if I understand the toplevel Makefile correctly.
>> 
>> Yes, that might be even better (albeit requiring adjustment of the
>> script should the naming in the source tree ever change again,
>> whereas the ARCH values are supposedly stable).
> 
> I think I will go with SRCARCH then. The directory names don't change so
> often.
> 
> Could you quickly check if the following is OK? It works on x86-64.

Yes, it is.

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>

> diff --git a/scripts/xz_wrap.sh b/scripts/xz_wrap.sh
> --- a/scripts/xz_wrap.sh
> +++ b/scripts/xz_wrap.sh
> @@ -12,8 +12,8 @@
>  BCJ=
>  LZMA2OPTS=
>  
> -case $ARCH in
> -	x86|x86_64)     BCJ=--x86 ;;
> +case $SRCARCH in
> +	x86)            BCJ=--x86 ;;
>  	powerpc)        BCJ=--powerpc ;;
>  	ia64)           BCJ=--ia64; LZMA2OPTS=pb=4 ;;
>  	arm)            BCJ=--arm ;;
> 
>> Will you get a patch to Linus then to fix all of these in 3.4?
> 
> I will. Should the fix be included in the stable trees too? I'm not sure
> if this is acceptable under the stable kernel rules.

Neither am I. It's not really critical to get this right, so I'd personally
not consider it a stable candidate.

> At least someone should test it on SPARC first.

Yes.

Thanks, Jan

--
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/