From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752028AbcDWLIn (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Apr 2016 07:08:43 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:34298 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751224AbcDWLIl (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Apr 2016 07:08:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:08:37 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Kees Cook Cc: Yinghai Lu , Baoquan He , Borislav Petkov , Ingo Molnar , "x86@kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Andrey Ryabinin , Dmitry Vyukov , "H.J. Lu" , Josh Poimboeuf , Andy Lutomirski , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: Rename overlapping memcpy() to memmove() Message-ID: <20160423110836.GA12304@gmail.com> References: <20160422222641.GA15276@www.outflux.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160422222641.GA15276@www.outflux.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Kees Cook wrote: > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c > @@ -1,7 +1,13 @@ > +/* > + * This provides an optimized implementation of memcpy, and a simplified > + * implementation of memset and memmove, to avoid problems with the > + * built-in implementations when running in the restricted decompression > + * stub environment. > + */ Does 'built in' here mean the compiler's implementation? We cannot call kernel built-in functions yet, so we have to duplicate everything we might need, right? Thanks, Ingo