linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: deal with alignment issues in built-in module versions

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:	Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:48:15 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	dtor@...are.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: deal with alignment issues in built-in module versions

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> You have to also pick .word vs. .xword, or whatever the appropriate
> sized pointer mnenomic is for a given architecture.  I know .word
> works for 32-bit sparc, and .xword works for 64-bit sparc.

Gaah, I didn't realize that we've never had to do anything like this
before, and that the exception table is all arch-specific code. So we
don't have any way to "output that damned pointer and stop whining
about it" model at all.

I really detest gcc sometimes. All these "clever" things that just
make things harder to do. If the user explicitly tells it the section
and the alignment, it should damn well not think that it knows better
and change it. Damn.

Maybe we have to take the "just confuse gcc enough and pray" approach
on those pointers after all.

                      Linus
--
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/