linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] atomic{64}_t: Explicitly specify data storage length and alignment

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:   Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:45:46 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "josh@...htriplett.org" <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "dvhart@...radead.org" <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "David.Laight@...LAB.COM" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "geert@...ux-m68k.org" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic{64}_t: Explicitly specify data storage length and
 alignment

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:30:41PM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hm, any thoughts on why it's "u64" for 32-bit x86?

Accident probably. It probably doesn't really matter all that much
because the kernel hard assumes 2s complement, but it is somewhat
inconsistent.