[an error occurred while processing this directive]

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: <b2f04105-da42-415d-a56a-8934c179d70c@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 12:22:15 +0800
From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
To: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, oak@...sinkinet.fi,
 peterz@...radead.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, will@...nel.org,
 Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: Specify natural alignment for atomic_t



On 2025/8/25 11:59, Finn Thain wrote:
> 
> 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.

Apologies for the confusion. I was referring to the runtime warning from
WARN_ON_ONCE, not a compile-time warning.