linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] bootconfig: Use hexadecimal ASCII string for size and checksum

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]

Message-Id: <20201120085805.dd581c5fa9dc52f699bcbcc6@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:58:05 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] bootconfig: Use hexadecimal ASCII string for
 size and checksum

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 12:42:34 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:36:47 -0800
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 6:31 AM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is a seires of patches to change the bootconfig footer format
> > > to use 8-bytes hexadecimal ASCII string for size and checksum instead
> > > of u32.  
> > 
> > Ugh.,
> > 
> > Just make it little-endian only.
> > 
> > The _worst_ thing to do is to make it some kind of "native-endian",
> > because then you have to deal with cross building issues etc.
> > 
> > But using a __le32 type and just doing "le32_to_cpu()" is trivial and
> > optimal - not just because everybody relevant is LE anyway, but simply
> > because even if you _aren't_ LE, an unconditional byte swap is better
> > than a conditional native access.
> 
> And since this isn't used in any fast paths, the byte swapping in the
> kernel should be a non-issue.

Thanks for the comment!
OK, let me renew the series to use le32.


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>