switcher: use two different (un)sealing caps #359
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
nwf
force-pushed
the
202411-switcher-dual-wield-seals
branch
from
af22660 to
8c9b27a
Compare
This shrinks the switcher section by 22 bytes in total and removes 10 instructions, 6 of which were in the swticher "core" (cross-call and exception paths).
nwf
force-pushed
the
202411-switcher-dual-wield-seals
branch
from
8c9b27a to
0511f49
Compare
davidchisnall
approved these changes
Nov 28, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This shrinks the switcher section by 22 bytes in total and removes 10 instructions, 6 of which were in the swticher "core" (cross-call and exception paths).
If we end up keeping the CUnseal-inbounds architectural change (CHERIoT-Platform/cheriot-sail#87), then this is especially worthwhile, as it dodges the need to add a few csetbounds instructions.
Doing this separately from #358 because it's a hair more invasive and could stand to be reviewed independently.