linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Thing 1: Shardmap fox Ext4

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:   Sun, 8 Dec 2019 02:25:22 -0800
From:   Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Thing 1: Shardmap fox Ext4

On 2019-11-27 6:28 p.m., Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> The use of C++ with templates is presumably one of the "less so"
> parts, and it was that which I had in mind when I said,
> "reimplementing from scratch".

The templates were removed without reimplementing from scratch:

   https://github.com/danielbot/Shardmap/blob/master/shardmap.h#L88
   https://github.com/danielbot/Shardmap/blob/master/shardmap.cc#L82

The duopack/tripack facility, central to Shardmap efficient scalability, are
now just ordinary C code that happens to be compiled by a C++ compiler. I
think the machine code should be identical to what the templates produced,
though I did not verify.

This was a strictly mechanical conversion, less error prone than
reimplementing from scratch I would think. I expect the rest of the
back conversions to be similarly mechanical.

Regards,

Daniel