[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKRnqNLs_1zy1v5Ngk0fZ-VBXrh3i2ihqUMVUU1BYeEBd3zAEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 15:55:59 -0800
From: Bruce Korb <bruce.korb@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"John L. Hammond" <john.hammond@...el.com>,
Emoly Liu <emoly.liu@...el.com>,
Vitaly Fertman <vitaly_fertman@...atex.com>,
Bruno Faccini <bruno.faccini@...el.com>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: Designated initializers, struct randomization and addressing?
As a tangential party, I am a bit curious: does the randomization
plugin result in a compact structure? I ask because I know many/most
programmers don't bother with it and so doing so ought to make the
data more compact.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> how is the code to be verified so that
>> any use of things like offsetof and any
>> address/indexing is not impacted?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists