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: <20200605140951.GE4117@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:09:51 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, frederic@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, cai@....pw,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] sched: Replace rq::wake_list

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 06:33:38AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> I have not made the C standard. You point out yourself a possible explicit
> culprit: struct randomization. 

The randomization crud is very much outside the C spec.

> That by itself shows that you can not rely
> on two elements of different structures having the same alignment,

Randomization does not change the alignment, if it were to do that it
would break all sorts. All it does is change the order of elements.

> which is pretty much exactly what I said (and may explain why observing
> the problem seemed to at least somewhat depend on the weather).

A normal C compiler will have deterministic layout, otherwise unions and
union based type punning would not be a thing.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ