linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] arm: use built-in byte swap function

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: <20130129174249.GB25415@pd.tnic>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:42:49 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	"Woodhouse, David" <david.woodhouse@...el.com>
Cc:	Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@...escale.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@...ox.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm: use built-in byte swap function

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:46:58PM +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> If we're really going to have many different architectures depending
> on different versions of GCC for this (if it wasn't sane to use
> it from 4.4/4.8 when it got introduced, and depends on some later
> arch-specific optimisation), then perhaps we'll have the arch
> provide the corresponding required GCC_VERSION for using each of
> 64/32/16 bit builtins, instead of just a yes/no flag? Or just define
> __HAVE_BUILTIN_BSWAPxx__ for itself, perhaps?

Damn, there's already the __powerpc__ thing in there.

Yeah, something like defininig __HAVE_BUILTIN_BSWAPxx__ makes sense and
can keep the header arch-agnostic without growing all those different
arch defines.

But I liked your other suggestion better to get the offending compilers
fixed.

I dunno though, how generically is stuff like that getting implemented
for every arch so probably single arches doing __HAVE* defines is
probably going to be the realizable solution in the end.

Hmmm.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/