| 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 12:04:57 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Jes Sorensen <jes@....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 Jes Sorensen wrote: >> >> 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. > What is really poisonous is structures which get padded when all the members are naturally aligned. Unfortunately gcc produces really crap code with __attribute__((packed)) on some architectures, so just using that isn't a good solution. On the other hand, non-AEABI ARM sometimes needs it! For the lack of a __attribute__((nopad)) that would throw a warning or error on excessive padding, I fear that our best option is an __abi annotation which would enforce certain rules using sparse, and presumably provide __attribute__((packed)) on ARM: - All padding must be explicit. - All members must be naturally aligned. - No unportable constructs, like non-int-sized bitfields. -hpa - 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