linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] locking/urgent for v5.12-rc3

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: <YE8b6dgsEG4OU0ay@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:33:45 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] locking/urgent for v5.12-rc3

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 01:15:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 8:40 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> >  - A fix for the static_call mechanism so it handles unaligned
> >    addresses correctly.
> 
> I'm not disputing the fix in any way, but why weren't the relocation
> info and function start addresses mutually aligned?
> 
> Are we perhaps missing some .align directive somewhere?
> 
> Or am I missing something?

So I considered looking into that, but since carrying the flag on the
absolute address is always correct I figured it was the more robust fix.

I suppose I can try and figure out where alignment went wobbly.