On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:38:20 +0800 Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > Or I just realized that since different base64 tables only differ in the > last two characters, we could allocate a 256 entry reverse table inside > the base64 function and set the mapping for those two characters. That > way, users wouldn't need to pass in a reverse table. The downside is that > this would significantly increase the function's stack size. How many different variants are there? IIRC there are only are two common ones. (and it might not matter is the decoder accepted both sets since I'm pretty sure the issue is that '/' can't be used because it has already been treated as a separator.) Since the code only has to handle in-kernel users - which presumably use a fixed table for each call site, they only need to pass in an identifier for the table. That would mean they can use the same identifier for encode and decode, and the tables themselves wouldn't be replicated and would be part of the implementation. David
