[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52CF29B1.1000905@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:58:57 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
CC: steffen.klassert@...unet.com, davem@...emloft.net,
stephen@...workplumber.org, dev@...ts.strongswan.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h: Pack struct xfrm_userpolicy_info
On 01/09/2014 11:39 AM, Fan Du wrote:
>>> Otherwise 64bits kernel has sizeof(struct xfrm_userpolicy_info) 168 bytes,
>>> while 32bits compiled iproute2 see the same structure as 164 bytes, which
>>> leading deficit xfrm policy, in turn broken IPsec connectivity.
>>> Fix this by packing the structure.
>> This will force byte-by-byte access to all members on some arches like
>> ARM...
>>> Signed-off-by: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>>> index a8cd6a4..470bfae 100644
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>>> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ struct xfrm_userpolicy_info {
>>> /* Automatically expand selector to include matching ICMP payloads. */
>>> #define XFRM_POLICY_ICMP 2
>>> __u8 share;
>>> -};
>>> +} __attribute__((packed));
>> Please use the __packed macro instead. I guess you haven't run
>> checkpatch.pl?
> Lucky me, I run checkpatch every time before sending patch out.
Ah, this time it didn't have the *struct* start in the context, so that's
why there was no complaint (probably). Usually, it suggests using __packed...
WBR, Sergei
--
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