NAK. This could break in the case of careless bootloaders... On May 8, 2015 9:23:52 AM PDT, Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, May 08 2015, Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:42:33PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >>> It doesn't matter much, but this disassembly makes me cry a little >bit: >>> >>> ffffffff81f21223 <copy_bootdata>: >>> ffffffff81f21223: 55 push %rbp >>> ffffffff81f21224: 48 c7 c0 40 c2 02 82 mov >$0xffffffff8202c240,%rax >>> ffffffff81f2122b: 48 89 fe mov %rdi,%rsi >>> ffffffff81f2122e: a8 01 test $0x1,%al >>> >>> The reason is that boot_params is defined with >>> __attribute__((aligned(16))) in boot/main.c, but other translation >>> units only see the packed attribute on the definition of struct >>> boot_params, so assume the worst. Making the de facto alignment >public >> >> Wouldn't it be better if we put both attributes together, i.e.: > >Sure, putting it on the type works as well. Either way is fine with me. > >Rasmus
-- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
