linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] firmware: Sigma: Mark firmware strutcs packed

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, 24 Nov 2011 12:19:34 -0500
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	"Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	drivers@...log.com, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] firmware: Sigma: Mark firmware strutcs packed

On Thursday 24 November 2011 07:48:23 Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> Mark structs which are embedded into the firmware as packed to avoid
> alignment issues.

while in general this makes sense, i designed the struct layout specifically to 
work on any sane system.  that means 8bits align on 8bits, 16bits align on 
16bits, and 32bits align on 32bits.

do you see any place where this is not the case ?  otherwise, using __packed 
by itself doesn't make much sense unless you also change all the loads from 
the struct to the get_unaligned variety which would add useless overhead to 
many embedded parts.

all in all, i'd omit the __packed markings since they're unnecessary.
-mike

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)