linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] atomic: Specify natural alignment for atomic

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: <8ca84cf3-4e9c-6bb7-af3c-5ead372e8025@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 13:59:16 +1000 (AEST)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, geert@...ux-m68k.org, lance.yang@...ux.dev, 
    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, oak@...sinkinet.fi, 
    peterz@...radead.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: Specify natural alignment for atomic_t

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025, Lance Yang wrote:

> 
> However, as we've seen from the kernel test robot's report on 
> mt6660_chip, this won't solve the cases where a lock is forced to be 
> unaligned by #pragma pack(1). That will still trigger warnings, IIUC.
> 

I think you've misunderstood the warning that your patch produced. (BTW, I 
have not seen any warnings from my own patch, so far.)

The mistake you made in your patch was to add an alignment attribute to a 
member of a packed struct. That's why I suggested that you should align 
the lock instead.

Is there some problem with my approach?