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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:05:47 -0500 (EST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: linux@....linux.org.uk Cc: mareklindner@...mailbox.ch, sw@...onwunderlich.de, antonio@...hcoding.com, b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix ARM BUILD_BUG_ON() errors with batman-adv From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 19:15:53 +0000 > so there should be no undesired side effect from this packing. There is a huge side effect from ever using the packed attribute, in that the compiler can assume absolutely nothing about the alignment of any object or sub-object of the type you apply this attribute to. Even if it is "obvious" that some members will be aligned, the compiler cannot take advantage of this assumption because this attribute also means that an array of such elements might have arbitrary alignment. So you when you get a pointer to one of these objects, the compiler has to assume the worst possible case. This means using 4 byte loads to load a 32-bit quantity, always, unconditionally, no matter what. That's why we should do whatever is necessary to align things properly by hand, and use packed only as the last possible and least desirable resort. I'm not applying this, please try work to implement this more acceptably first. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists