linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: deal with alignment issues in built-in module versions

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:	Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:01:19 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	dtor@...are.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: deal with alignment issues in built-in
 module versions

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:54:57 -0800

> Is there a -fdata-align or something? Or would __attribute__((packed))
> help? Something that explicitly tells gcc "don't do this", instead of
> "let's add indirection and hope gcc doesn't add alignment for _that_".
> Especially as the extra pointer makes the code even uglier.

The tracing folks went down the path of trying to use packed in
various ways, to no avail, because no matter what they tried it broke
other things.

> And if we do have to use the pointer thing, let's at least then do the
> pointer with asms, so that gcc _really_ can't screw it up. Rather than
> just move the potential bug around.

That's fine with me.
--
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/