[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:28:30 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>
To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
dsterba@...e.cz, ptesarik@...e.cz, rguenther@...e.de,
gcc@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing
Hi,
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > Seriously - is there any real argument *against* just using the base
> > type as a hint for access size?
>
> If I'm on the hook for attempting to fix this again, I'd also like to
> know if there are any arguments against using the base type.
Sure. Simplest example: struct s {int i:24;} __attribute__((packed)).
You must access only three bytes, no matter what. The basetype (int) is
four bytes.
Ciao,
Michael.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists