linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Documentation about unaligned memory access

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071124155052.GA15440@bit.office.eurotux.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:50:52 +0000
From:	Luciano Rocha <strange@....no-ip.org>
To:	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
Cc:	Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, kune@...ne-taler.de, johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: [RFC] Documentation about unaligned memory access

On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 02:34:41PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:15:53 +0000 (GMT)
> Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org> wrote:
> 
> > Being spoilt by the luxuries of i386/x86_64 I've never really had a good
> > grasp on unaligned memory access problems on other architectures and decided
> > it was time to figure it out. As a result I've written this documentation
> > which I plan to submit for inclusion as
> > Documentation/unaligned_memory_access.txt
> > 
> > Before I do so, any comments on the following?
> > 
> 
> A very nice, and much needed document. I think you should include one thing though:
> 
> memcpy() is _only_ safe when one of the pointers is char* or void*. If it is anything more complex than that, gcc will assume alignment and optimise based on that. E.g. memcpy() of two long:s generates the same assembly as doing an assignment.

Dumb memcpy (while (len--) { *d++ = *s++ }) will have alignment problems
in any case. Intelligent ones, like the one provided in glibc, first copy
bytes till output is aligned (C file) *or* size is a multiple (i686 asm file)
of word size, and then it copies word-by-word.

Linux's x86_64 memcpy does the opposite, copies 64bit words, and then
copies the last bytes.

So, in effect, as long as no packed structures are used, memcpy should
be safer on *int, etc., than *char, as the compiler ensures
word-alignment.

-- 
lfr
0/0

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped