linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] Use __kernel_ulong_t in struct msqid64

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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFy+XOc350sVuLKDHAaKtz9GdLcVmjxs98N8XLTK4zmMYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2012 17:07:42 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] Use __kernel_ulong_t in struct msqid64_ds

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> The sane thing would seem to be to change __BITS_PER_LONG to 32 on x32
> and fix the padding hacks in struct shmid64_ds; H.J., would you agree?

Ugh. That looks like a disaster.

The padding hacks that depend on __BITS_PER_LONG seem pretty damn broken anyway.

They only work if the kernel agrees with the value (which is against
the whole point of making __BITS_PER_LONG be about some user-level ABI
thing) or for little-endian machines.

IOW, all the __BITS_PER_LONG games look totally broken to me. I can't
see how they could possibly even be fixed.

                           Linus
--
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/