[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:09:59 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@...il.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>, gcc@....gnu.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: ARM unaligned MMIO access with attribute((packed))
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:51:27PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I would suggest fixing this by:
> >
> > 1. auditing all uses of __attribute__((packed)) in the Linux USB code
> > and other drivers, removing the ones that are potentially harmful.
> >
> > 2. Changing the ARM MMIO functions to use inline assembly instead of
> > direct pointer dereference.
> >
> > 3. Documenting the gcc behavior as undefined.
>
> The pointer conversions already invoke undefined behavior as specified by the
> C standard (6.3.2.3/7).
Just to be clear: you are not saying that the ARM implementation is
undefined.
What you're saying is that converting from a pointer with less strict
alignment requirements to a pointer with more strict alignment
requirements is undefined.
IOW:
unsigned long *blah(unsigned char *c)
{
return (unsigned long *)c;
}
would be undefined, but:
unsigned char *blah(unsigned long *c)
{
return (unsigned char *)c;
}
would not be.
If you're saying something else, please explain with reference to the
point in the C standard you quote above.
--
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