linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] riscv: Add jump-label implementation

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 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:   Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:09:42 +0200
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
To:     Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>
Cc:     linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] riscv: Add jump-label implementation

On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 13:35, Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 13:23, Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Indeed. And nice work! Can you respin the patch with the 32b fix
> > above, and also without the RFC tag?
>
> Yes, of course. If you don't mind I'll wait a bit and let this collect
> a bit more comments.
>

Certainly!

> > Curious; Why is [branch ? 1 : 0] needed when coding the boolean into
> > the key pointer (arm64 is just [branch]). Different encoding of
> > booleans (branch in this case)?
>
> No, that was just me being unsure exactly how bool works when used as
> an index. After reading up on it it seems the original code is right,
> you can actually trust that _Bool is either 0 or 1. I'll fix it in the
> next version. Thanks!
>

Cool! Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Cheers,
Björn