linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put

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]

Message-ID: <45D4F735.1020106@goop.org>
Date:	Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:13:41 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@....ocn.ne.jp>,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize generic get_unaligned / put_unaligned implementations.

Andrew Morton wrote:
> hm.  So if I have
>
> 	struct bar {
> 		unsigned long b;
> 	} __attribute__((packed));
>
> 	struct foo {
> 		unsigned long u;
> 		struct bar b;
> 	};
>
> then the compiler can see that foo.b.b is well-aligned, regardless of the
> packedness.

In Ralf's code, the structure is anonymous, and is used to declare a
pointer type, which is initialized from a void *.  So I think the
compiler isn't allowed to assume anything about its alignment.

    J
-
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/