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: <665cd40a-4562-a015-78c6-12976c12b626@suse.de>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:18:35 +0200
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>,
        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?

On 10/17/2016 06:08 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> * Would you really like to know under which circumstances data processing
>>>   will be faster for a single character instead of using a string pointer
>>>   and corresponding two characters?
>>>
>> It's not a problem of the interface, it's a problem of the resulting code
>> (ie assembler output).
>
> How do you think about to discuss concrete generated code any further?
>
Sure. Show me the generated code and point out where the benefits are.

>> We can discuss all we like, if the compiler decides to throw in
>> an optimisation none of the arguments even apply.
>
> Would it make sense to clarify assembler output with optimisation switched off?
>
> Do you eventually care for code from non-optimising compilers?
>
No. This is the linux kernel. There is a very, _very_ limited benefit of 
trying to use a non-standard compiler.

>
>>> * Will it occasionally be useful to avoid the storage for another string literal?
>>>
>> Occasionally: yes.
>> In this particular case: hardly.
>
> I am curious when such a software design aspect can become more relevant.
> Would it be nice to get rid of three questionable string terminators (null bytes)
> for example?
>
Again, all this does it trying to out-guess what the compiler might be 
doing during compilation. For which the easiest method is checking.
So back to the original task for you: Show me in the generated output 
where the benefits are.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@...e.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)