linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mips-next 0/2] MIPS: optimize relocations processing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210118145758.GB11749@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:57:58 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Jinyang He <hejinyang@...ngson.cn>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mips-next 0/2] MIPS: optimize relocations processing

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 03:01:57PM +0000, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> This series converts the logics of two main relocation functions,
> one for relocatable kernel and one for modules, from the arrays of
> handlers (callbacks) to plain switch-case functions, which allows
> the compiler to greatly optimize the code, so the relocations will
> be applied faster with lesser code size.
> 
> Tested on MIPS32 R2 with GCC 10.2 and LLVM 11.0 with -O2.
> 
> Alexander Lobakin (2):
>   MIPS: module: optimize module relocations processing
>   MIPS: relocatable: optimize the relocation process
> 
>  arch/mips/kernel/module.c   | 109 +++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  arch/mips/kernel/relocate.c |  54 ++++++++++--------
>  2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)

series applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]