linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC fix for 5.17

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:   Sun, 20 Feb 2022 12:12:41 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:     linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC fix for 5.17

On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 3:50 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>
> please pull a fix for a long-standing, hard-to-catch issue in the EDAC
> weird struct allocation code, for 5.17.

Heh. Yeah, that was subtly buggy.

Side note: the comment says that it will align to at least as much as
the compiler would do, but then it does something different, eg

        if (size > sizeof(long))
                align = sizeof(long long);
        ...

and it might make sense to use "__alignof__()" instead of "sizeof()"
just to make the code match the comment.

For example, on 32-bit x86, "sizeof(long long)" is 8, but
"__alignof__(long long)" is only 4.

And then we have m68k..

Or maybe the comment should be fixed instead, and talk about "natural
alignment" rather than "compiler alignment".

             Linus