linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 04/18] csum_and_copy_..._user(): pass 0xffffffff instead of 0 as initial sum

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, 23 Jul 2020 15:36:52 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Al Viro' <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
CC:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 04/18] csum_and_copy_..._user(): pass 0xffffffff instead
 of 0 as initial sum

From: Al Viro
> Sent: 23 July 2020 16:21
...
> The point is, your "~4.5 cycles per vector" is pretty much noise and the
> difference between the 3-argument and 4-argument variants could easily be
> in the same range.  It might be a valid microoptimization, it might be not.
> 3-argument variant is simpler and IMO in absence of strong data we ought
> to go with that.

There is definitely more to be gained by rewriting the x86-86 asm.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)