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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:28:30 +0100 (CET) From: Michael Matz <matz@...e.de> To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@...hat.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>, Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, dsterba@...e.cz, ptesarik@...e.cz, rguenther@...e.de, gcc@....gnu.org Subject: Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing Hi, On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > > Seriously - is there any real argument *against* just using the base > > type as a hint for access size? > > If I'm on the hook for attempting to fix this again, I'd also like to > know if there are any arguments against using the base type. Sure. Simplest example: struct s {int i:24;} __attribute__((packed)). You must access only three bytes, no matter what. The basetype (int) is four bytes. Ciao, Michael. -- 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