netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] riscv: set HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED

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:   Fri, 25 Jan 2019 17:33:50 -0800
From:   Jim Wilson <jimw@...ive.com>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc:     bjorn.topel@...il.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, David Lee <davidlee@...ive.com>,
        daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] riscv: set HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:21 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com> wrote:
> Jim, would you be opposed to something like this?

This looks OK to me.

>     +    builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_tune_misaligned_load_cost",
>     +                                   riscv_tune_info->slow_unaligned_access ? 1024 : 1);
>     +    builtin_define_with_int_value ("__riscv_tune_misaligned_store_cost",
>     +                                   riscv_tune_info->slow_unaligned_access ? 1024 : 1);

It would be nice to have a better way to compute these values, maybe
an extra field in the tune structure, but we can always worry about
that later when we need it.

Jim