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:	Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:42:48 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: Early crash

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 05:57:08 am David Miller wrote:
> From: Dmitry Torokhov <>
> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:58:29 -0800
> > But, theoretically speaking, nothing stops GCC to align pointers with
> > "gaps" as well? Let's say having everything (or some) aligned on
> > quadword boundary even though arch is 32 bit?
> The alignment business only applies to aggregates (ie. structs and
> unions).
> This has been confirmed via several weeks of expermentation with
> different GCC versions on different platforms as well.

But OTOH, this is an old problem which was faced by module params since
pre-git.  And we use the-align-to-void*-size method there; I vaguely recall
inserting it.

You've now got me wondering whether these platforms have broken builtin
module parameters, but I think it would crash iterating if you had any
boot parameters at all if that were the case.

So do we fix that now too, or wait for it to break?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists