linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] RISC-V: alternative: Remove feature_probe

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: <CALs-HssoL9grnv80OGzUP2rKF9H5YPGt6M0xBHHwdhEf=iLt1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 14:57:23 -0700
From:   Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
        Simon Hosie <shosie@...osinc.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
        Ley Foon Tan <leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
        Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] RISC-V: alternative: Remove feature_probe_func

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 6:07 AM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Evan,
>
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 03:20:16PM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
> > Now that we're testing unaligned memory copy and making that
> > determination generically, there are no more users of the vendor
> > feature_probe_func(). While I think it's probably going to need to come
> > back, there are no users right now, so let's remove it until it's
> > needed.
>
> How come this is done as a separate patch, rather than delete the dead
> code as part of the probe addition? Ease of review?

Yes, it just seemed like a logically distinct change. Thanks for the review!
-Evan