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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:48:06 -0700 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, davem@...emloft.net, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...e.hu, ebiederm@...ssion.com, aarcange@...hat.com, ericvh@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/7] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable Hello, On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:41:34PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > I forgot to comment on that one, sorry. > > If we put hash entries after struct hash_table we don't take the > bits field size into account, or did I miss something? So, if you do the following, struct { struct { int i; long ar[]; } B; long __ar_storage[32]; } A; It should always be safe to dereference A.B.ar[31]. I'm not sure whether this is something guaranteed by C tho. Maybe compilers are allowed to put members in reverse order but I think we already depend on the above. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists