linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] lib/string.c: implement a basic bcmp

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]

Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 14:05:24 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib/string.c: implement a basic bcmp

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:02:37 -0700 Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:

> Shall I send you a cleanup removing the undefs for bcmp, memcmp,
> strcat, strcpy, and strcmp?  Of those, I only see memcmp being
> `#defined` in arch/m68k/include/asm/string.h, arch/x86/boot/string.h,
> and arch/x86/include/asm/string_32.h.
> 
> Further, I can drop some of the __GNUC__ < 4 code in
> arch/x86/include/asm/string_32.h. (grepping for __GNUC__, looks like
> there's a fair amount of code that can be cleaned up).  We should
> probably check it since Clang lies about being GCC 4.2 compatible,
> which will surely break in horrific ways at some point.\

All sounds good.  Some time, when convenient, thanks.