On 5 October 2018 at 15:37, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > Therefore, I think this patch goes in exactly the wrong direction. I > mean, if you want to introduce dynamic patching as a means for making > the crypto API's dynamic dispatch stuff not as slow in a post-spectre > world, sure, go for it; that may very well be a good idea. But > presenting it as an alternative to Zinc very widely misses the point and > serves to prolong a series of bad design choices, which are now able to > be rectified by putting energy into Zinc instead. > This series has nothing to do with dynamic dispatch: the call sites call crypto functions using ordinary function calls (although my example uses CRC-T10DIF), and these calls are redirected via what is essentially a PLT entry, so that we can supsersede those routines at runtime.
