From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261426AbTIXFZ4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:25:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261812AbTIXFZ4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:25:56 -0400 Received: from h80ad269b.async.vt.edu ([128.173.38.155]:50048 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261326AbTIXFZw (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:25:52 -0400 Message-Id: <200309240518.h8O5IYcw005735@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Alan Cox , "David S. Miller" , davidm@hpl.hp.com, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com, peter@chubb.wattle.id.au, bcrl@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, iod00d@hp.com, peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au, linux-ns83820@kvack.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: NS83820 2.6.0-test5 driver seems unstable on IA64 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:58:29 PDT." From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1580433968P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:18:34 -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_-1580433968P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:58:29 PDT, "Luck, Tony" said: > Alan Cox wrote: > > On Maw, 2003-09-23 at 19:21, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > a) the programmer is playing fast and loose with types and/or casts. > > > b) the end-user is going to be disappointed with the performance. > > > > c) the programmer is being clever and knows the unaligned access is > > cheaper on average than the cost of making sure it cant happen > > Which is great until the "cleverly written" program is fed a data set > that pushes into the unaligned case far more frequently than the > programmer anticipated. Didn't we recently fix a DoS attack on the TCP stack that was basically this sort of thing with hashes? And crafting an attack against this would be a lot simpler than the hash-function attack..... --==_Exmh_-1580433968P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE/cSkqcC3lWbTT17ARArzLAKCmZ0L+QeMvsMtsNJ7WF+FKE01+swCfcCn2 i7kRo3EGWP8yKi4kus7OqVQ= =Bzqo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1580433968P--