linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata-eh: Use switch() instead of sparse array for protocol strings

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: <20170109173154.GE12827@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jan 2017 12:31:54 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata-eh: Use switch() instead of sparse array for
 protocol strings

Hello,

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:27:23AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 05:30:02PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > ata_force_param_buf is __initdata and shouldn't really matter.
> > 
> > It mainly matters because of e.g. bootloader limitations.
> 
> Do we need a full 4k for the force parameters?  What would a typical
> command line for it look like?

Maybe a couple hundreds bytes at max, but it's a bit weird to restrict
this given that it is bss, not gigantic and __initdata.  What kind of
bootloader limitations are we talking about?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun