| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20110119.142137.184823805.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:21:37 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, richm@...elvet.org.uk, 609371@...s.debian.org, ben@...adent.org.uk, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...hat.com Subject: Re: Bug#609371: linux-image-2.6.37-trunk-sparc64: module scsi_mod: Unknown relocation: 36 From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:13:27 -0500 > Hrm, I'd like to see what kind of ill-conceived 32-bit architecture would > generate a unaligned access for a 32-bit aligned u64. Do you have examples in > mind ? By definition, the memory accesses should be at most 32-bit, no ? AFAIK, > gcc treats u64 as two distinct reads on all 32-bit architectures. Sparc 32-bit has 64-bit loads and stores, GCC uses them because the ABI specifies that every structure is at least 8 byte aligned. > gcc on my sparc64 box (32-bit userland) disagrees with you here ;) Using > gcc (Debian 4.3.3-14) 4.3.3, here is a demonstration that, indeed, "packed" > generates aweful code, but that "packed, aligned(4 or 8)" generates pretty > decent code: Amazing, if this works then do it. But please document this fully with comments and such :-) -- 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