[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1202031034450.4999@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:37:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@...e.de>
To: DJ Delorie <dj@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
dsterba@...e.cz, ptesarik@...e.cz, gcc@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
> > we've spotted the following mismatch between what kernel folks expect
> > from a compiler and what GCC really does, resulting in memory corruption on
> > some architectures. Consider the following structure:
> > struct x {
> > long a;
> > unsigned int b1;
> > unsigned int b2:1;
> > };
>
> If this structure were volatile, you could try
> -fstrict-volatile-bitfields, which forces GCC to use the C type to
> define the access width, instead of doing whatever it thinks is optimal.
>
> Note: that flag is enabled by default for some targets already, most
> notably ARM.
Note that -fstrict-volatile-bitfields does not work for
volatile struct S {
int i : 1;
char c;
} s;
int main()
{
s.i = 1;
s.c = 2;
}
where it accesses s.i using SImode. -fstrict-volatile-bitfields
falls foul of all the games bitfield layout plays and the
irrelevantness of the declared bitfield type (but maybe the
ARM ABI exactly specifies it that way).
So no, I would not recommend -fstrict-volatile-bitfields.
Richard.
--
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