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: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:58:34 +0200 From: Jes Sorensen <jes@....com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Jes Sorensen wrote: >> >>> That's how the ABI is defined. >> >> That the ABI for long long or the ABI for uint64_t? Given that u64 is a >> Linux thing, it ought to be ok to do the alignment the right way within >> the kernel. >> > > And what will break if you make that switch? If we are lucky, some binary only modules? :-) But you're right, it may just have to be documented as one of those nasty issues to watch out for. Cheers, Jes - 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