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  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]
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:23:36 -0800
From:   Vineet Gupta <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
CC:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Alexey Brodkin <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Mark Rutland <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: Explicitly set ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN = 8

On 2/13/19 4:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Personally I think u64 and company should already force natural
> alignment; but alas.

But there is an ISA/ABI angle here too. e.g. On 32-bit ARC, LDD (load double) is
allowed to take a 32-bit aligned address to load a register pair. Thus all u64
need not be 64-bit aligned (unless attribute aligned 8 etc) hence the relaxation
in ABI (alignment of long long is 4). You could certainly argue that we end up
undoing some of it anyways by defining things like ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN to 8, but

> I though that was part of the reason we have __u64
> and co., so that ABI is invariant to kernel alignment changes.

Apparently not.

>>> I suspect the slab allocator should be returning 8 byte aligned addresses
>>> on all systems.... 
>> why ? As I understand it is still not fool proof against the expected alignment of
>> inner members. There ought to be a better way to enforce all this.
> I agree that for ARC ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN should be at least 8.

This issue aside, are there other reasons ? Because making it 8 on ARC is just
pending the eventuality for later.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists