netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] fast_hash: clobber registers correctly for inline function use

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]

Message-Id: <20141114.163525.859246902603470379.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:35:25 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hannes@...essinduktion.org
Cc:	cwang@...pensource.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, pshelar@...ira.com,
	jesse@...ira.com, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com,
	discuss@...nvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] fast_hash: clobber registers correctly for
 inline function use

From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 21:42:13 +0100

> On Fr, 2014-11-14 at 11:02 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>> 
>> I am wondering, compare with alternative call, how slower is just
>> testing
>> cpu_has_xmm4_2?
> 
> I can test, but cpu_has_xmm4_2 expands into quite some code. I don't
> know if indirect function call or a test of this flag is faster. I'll
> test this.

I'm going to apply Jay's revert, and then you guys can take your time
sorting this out.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html