linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/78] 5.15.55-rc1 review

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

Message-ID: <6210C171-BBBD-4FC4-B5FF-68D715941501@alien8.de>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jul 2022 19:26:54 +0000
From:   Boris Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...onical.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Slade Watkins <slade@...dewatkins.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        patches@...nelci.org, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 00/78] 5.15.55-rc1 review

On July 14, 2022 6:16:40 PM UTC, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>So yeah, it would be less dense, but do we care? Wouldn't the "this is
>really simple" be a nice thing? It's not like there are a ton of those
>fastop functions anyway. 128 of them? Plus 16 of the "setCC" ones?

I definitely like simple.

Along with a comment why we have this magic 16 there.

-- 
Sent from a small device: formatting sux and brevity is inevitable.