linux-kernel - Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

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: <a0f96e19-fa24-8507-2b77-344a342113aa@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:10:18 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@...e.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Joe Perches <coupons@...ches.com>,
        Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@...e.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        Tomasz Majchrzak <tomasz.majchrzak@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, kbuild-all@...org,
        ltp@...ts.linux.it
Subject: Re: MD-RAID: Use seq_putc() in three status functions?

>> * Is a string pointer often longer than a byte?
>>
> Always.

I have got doubts for this specific information.


> (Which up to now I thought was basic programming knowledge...)

By the way:
Run time environments still exist where the size of a pointer can be also
just one byte, don't they?


>> How many results would we like to clarify from various hardware
>> and software combinations?
>>
> See above. At the moment _any_ test result from your side would do.

I imagine that another single result might not be representative.
How many lessons from test statistics will usually be also relevant here?


>> How important are the mentioned functions for you within the Linux
>> programming interface so far?
>>
> Not very. The interface is only used in a slow path, and the execution
> time doesn't affect I/O performance in any way.

Thanks for another interesting information.


>>> Case in point: with your patch the x86_64 compiler generates nearly
>>> identical code for driver/md/raid1.c, but with one instruction _more_
>>> after your patch has been applied.
>>
>> Which software versions and command parameters did you try out
>> for this information (from an unspecified run time environment)?
>>
> # gcc --version
> gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.5

Thanks for this detail.

* Did you choose any special optimisation settings for your quick check?

* Will any compilation results matter if "optimisation" would be
  switched off there?


> I'm still waiting from results from your side.

Would any other software developers or testers dare to add related information?

Regards,
Markus