linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] SATA: Fine-tuning for two function implementations

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:   Thu, 11 May 2017 17:01:34 +0200
From:   Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] SATA: Fine-tuning for two function implementations


Hi,

On Friday, April 28, 2017 05:53:34 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:00:37PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:54:32 +0200
> > 
> > A few update suggestions were taken into account
> > from static source code analysis.
> 
> Hmmm, allocs -> callocs.  Are these actually beneficial?  If so, why?
> Because one multiplication is rolled into the call?

Each conversion (i.e. I tried the one from patch #1) seems to add
an extra 24 bytes to the resulting code size (using gcc 4.8.4 for
ARM32 cross-compilation) so I don't see much point in the automatic
conversions. Only instances containing size calculations with
real possibility for integer overflows should be converted and
the patchset under discussion contains no such instances.

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics