linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/10] Change table chaining layout

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:	Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	mingo@...e.hu, Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] Change table chaining layout

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:

> For structures, not array elements or stack objects. Does gcc now get
> aligned correct as an attribute on a stack object ?

I think m68k stack layout still guarantees 4-byte-alignment, no?

> Still doesn't answer the rather more important question - why not just
> stick a NULL on the end instead of all the nutty hacks ?

You still do need one bit for the discontiguous case, so it's not like you 
can avoid the hacks anyway (unless you just blow up the structure 
entirely) and make it a separate member). So once you have that 
bit+pointer, using a separate NULL entry isn't exactly prettier. 

Especially as we actally want to see the difference between 
"end-of-allocation" and "not yet filled in", so you shouldn't use NULL 
anyway, you should probably use something like "all-ones".

			Linus
-
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/