linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] linker-section array fix and clean ups

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]

Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:18:36 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...ogle.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] linker-section array fix and clean ups

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:47:16PM +0100, Jessica Yu wrote:

> Thanks for providing the links and references. Your explanation and
> this reply from Jakub [1] clarified things for me. I was not aware of
> the distinction gcc made between aligned attributes on types vs. on
> variables. So from what I understand now, gcc suppresses the
> optimization when the alignment is specified in the variable
> declaration, but not necessarily when the aligned attribute is just on
> the type.
> 
> Even though it's been in use for a long time, I think it would be
> really helpful if this gcc quirk was explained just a bit more in the
> patch changelogs, especially since this is undocumented behavior.
> I found the explanation in [1] (as well as in your cover letter) to be
> sufficient. Maybe something like "GCC suppresses any optimizations
> increasing alignment when the alignment is specified in the variable
> declaration, as opposed to just on the type definition. Therefore,
> explicitly specify type alignment when declaring entries to prevent
> gcc from increasing alignment."

Sure, I can try to expand the commit messages a bit.

> In any case, I can take the module and moduleparam.h patches through
> my tree, but I will wait a few days in case there are any objections.

Sounds good, thanks. I'll send a v2 next week then.

Johan

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201021131806.GA2176@tucnak/