linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Introduce compat_u64 and compat

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:21:35 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce compat_u64 and compat_s64 types

On Saturday 16 June 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Will GCC know that it needs to emit code to handle that (mis)alignment?
> 
> I've tested this with gcc-4.0.3, and it does the right thing, which
> is to split a 4 byte aligned 64 bit load/store into two 32 bit accesses,
> if you pass -mstrict-align.

I just realized this was correct but slightly misleading. On powerpc, we
don't set the 'attribute((aligned(4)))' on compat_64, so there is never
a reason to handle the misalignment, even though it would work.

On x86_64, misaligned loads are always ok, so gcc never needs to
care about this, even attribute((packed)) does not cause byte access
here.

	Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/