On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
>
> It's better in so far as it avoids the problems previously highlighted.
>
> However, it depends how efficient we want these paths to be - the
> difference between your assembly and the assembly I've previously
> supplied is that
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 10:42:14AM -0700, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Garnier
> > wrote:
> >> Disable the generic address limit check in favor of an architecture
> >> specific optimized implementation. The
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
>> Disable the generic address limit check in favor of an architecture
>> specific optimized implementation. The generic implementation using
>> pending work flags did not work well with AR
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> Disable the generic address limit check in favor of an architecture
> specific optimized implementation. The generic implementation using
> pending work flags did not work well with ARM and alignment faults.
>
> The address limit is checked
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Garnier wrote:
> Disable the generic address limit check in favor of an architecture
> specific optimized implementation. The generic implementation using
> pending work flags did not work well with ARM and alignment faults.
>
> The address limit is checked
5 matches
Mail list logo