netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: add byteorder macros with alignment fixups

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: <1206038244.17059.7.camel@brick>
Date:	Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:37:24 -0700
From:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: add byteorder macros with alignment fixups

On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 18:29 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:14AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > A common pattern in the kernel (especially networking) is:
> > 
> > le32_to_cpu(get_unaligned((__le32 *)x));
> > 
> > Repeat for various combinations of le/be and 64/32/16 bit.  Add
> > a variant that operates on possibly unaligned pointers to
> > byteorder/generic.h
> 
> ... and asm/unaligned.h has just acquired fuckloads of places including
> it indirectly.  Not Nice(tm).

Time for linux/unaligned.h?

Do you think the helpers are worth it...wherever they end up?

Harvey

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html