linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: add 'runtime constant' infrastructure

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]

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 13:26:39 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, 
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add 'runtime constant' infrastructure

On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 13:16, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> I just had an idea how to clearly make this type-safe as a benefit.

You mean exactly like my patch already is, because I use the section name?

Christ people. I am throwing down the gauntlet: if you can't make a
patch that actually *improves* on what I already posted, don't even
bother.

The whole "it doesn't scale" is crazy talk. We don't want hundreds -
much less thousands - of these things. Using one named section for
each individual constant is a *good* thing.

So really: take a good hard look at that final

  [PATCH 3/7] x86: add 'runtime constant' support

at

  https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240610204821.230388-4-torvalds@linux-foundation.org/

and only if you can *improve* on it by making it smaller or somehow
actually better.

Seriously. There's one line in that patch that really says it all:

 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)

and that's with basically optimal code generation. Improve on *THAT*.

No more of this pointless bikeshedding with arguments that make no
actual technical sense.

             Linus