linux-kernel - Re: Size of 2.6.20 task_struct on x86

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:	Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:19:45 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	wcohen@...hat.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Size of 2.6.20 task_struct on x86_64 machines

From: William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:14:13 -0500

> This past week I was playing around with that pahole tool
> (http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/) and looking at the
> size of various struct in the kernel. I was surprised by the size of
> the task_struct on x86_64, approaching 4K.  I looked through the
> fields in task_struct and found that a number of them were declared as
> "unsigned long" rather than "unsigned int" despite them appearing okay
> as 32-bit sized fields. On x86_64 "unsigned long" ends up being 8
> bytes in size and forces 8 byte alignment. Is there a reason there
> a reason they are "unsigned long"?

I think at one point we used the atomic bit operations to operate on
things like tsk->flags, and those interfaces require unsigned long as
the type.

That doesn't appear to be the case any longer, so at a minimum
your tsk->flags conversion to unsigned int should be ok.
-
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/