linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] powerpc: Cleanup use of 'struct ppc

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:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:24:30 +0200
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jniethe5@...il.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] powerpc: Cleanup use of 'struct ppc_inst'



Le 15/06/2021 à 09:18, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> writes:
>> This series is a cleanup of the use of 'struct ppc_inst'.
>>
>> A confusion is made between internal representation of powerpc
>> instructions with 'struct ppc_inst' and in-memory code which is
>> and will always be an array of 'unsigned int'.
> 
> Why don't we use u32 *, to make it even more explicit what the expected
> size is?
> 

I guess that's historical, we could use u32 *

We can convert it incrementaly maybe ?