| 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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1106201622160.2142@xanadu.home> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:28:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...e.de, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in> Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: ehci: use packed,aligned(4) instead of removing the packed attribute On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 20 June 2011 19:39:34 Alexander Holler wrote: > > That packed without an additional aligned() caused errors on ARM with > > gcc 4.6 is another problem which got (currently) fixed by removing packed. > > Packed caused errors because it is *wrong*. The code as it was used undefined > behavior in the language. I wouldn't call this issue as such, but this is a Red herring. Could you please provide a pointer to the structure definition so a second opinion to the usefulness of __packed there could be provided? If it is not matching any of the fairly limited cases where having __packed is relevant then we can just confirm that it should go. Nicolas -- 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