Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752479AbXEXSvX (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 14:51:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752085AbXEXSvP (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 14:51:15 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.13]:46488 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750793AbXEXSvN (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 14:51:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:50:55 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Michael-Luke Jones Cc: lkml , Richard Purdie Subject: Re: [RFC] [-mm] Remove 'unsafe' LZO decompressor Message-Id: <20070524115055.6be93924.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1412F214-FA89-4088-B3A2-DEE03C324FB6@cam.ac.uk> References: <1412F214-FA89-4088-B3A2-DEE03C324FB6@cam.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1687 Lines: 35 On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:15:17 +0100 Michael-Luke Jones wrote: > Attached is a patch which may be desirable for -mm. It applies > directly to 2.6.22-rc2-mm1. > > The patch removes the 'unsafe' LZO decompression function, lowering > the size of the minilzo.c file by nearly 500 out of an original 1727 > lines. It also removes references to the 'unsafe' decompression > function in the public LZO header and the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL declaration. > > This is intended to provoke some discussion over whether a > decompression function able to scribble on arbitrary memory is > desirable in the mainline kernel, whatever the performance increases. > > Over and above the security/stability implications of using this > code, it can also be argued to represent an unnecessary duplication > of the vast majority of LZO decompression code. This is due to the > lack of likely in-kernel uses of the 'unsafe' function. > > Only a single user for this 'unsafe' code has been suggested, the > 'Compressed Caching' project. This code is highly unlikely to move > into mainline in the same timeframe as the LZO code. All of the other > suggested uses require decompression of untrusted data, such that the > 'safe' function should be used. > > Comments / disagreement all welcome :) This is obviously a highly desirable thing to do for a number of reasons. But have we quantified the performance difference? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/