Marc Lörner wrote:
off0 is 0x14 => no problem with that
but address of ip is 0xe00021c8706e => not correct aligned to 32-bits
Can anyone tell me, where ip is allocated, so I can do a little bit more
research?
It really depends on the context! That's a very wide ranging question.
It de
On Friday 06 June 2008 14:25, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Marc [iso-8859-1] Lörner wrote:
> > On Friday 06 June 2008 09:52, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >> I gather from this comment that you have some code using struct tcphdr
> >> that is getting alignment errors. struct tcphdr is extensive
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Marc [iso-8859-1] L?rner wrote:
On Friday 06 June 2008 09:52, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I gather from this comment that you have some code using struct tcphdr
that is getting alignment errors. struct tcphdr is extensively used
in the TCP stack within the kernel so it's likely tha
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Marc L?rner wrote:
..
First of all I have the problam of misalignment of th_off. Because in this
way always 4 bytes are read and the the bits of th_off are replaced. Then
the 4 bytes are written back.
But should (th_x and th_off) not only be 1 byte
On Friday 06 June 2008 09:52, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Jun-06 09:30:28 +0200, Marc Lörner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >th_x2 and th_off are created as a bitfield. But C-Standard says that
> >bitfields are accessed as integers => 4-bytes
> >
> >On itanium integers are read with ld4-command but
On 2008-Jun-06 09:30:28 +0200, Marc Lörner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>th_x2 and th_off are created as a bitfield. But C-Standard says that
>bitfields are accessed as integers => 4-bytes
>
>On itanium integers are read with ld4-command but the address of
>th_x2/th_off may not be aligned to 4-bytes
Marc Lörner wrote:
th_x2 and th_off are created as a bitfield. But C-Standard says that bitfields
are accessed as integers => 4-bytes
On itanium integers are read with ld4-command but the address of th_x2/th_off
may not be aligned to 4-bytes => we get an unaligned reference fault.
If we'd ch
On Thursday 05 June 2008 18:09, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Marc Lörner wrote:
> > ..
> > First of all I have the problam of misalignment of th_off. Because in
> > this way always 4 bytes are read and the the bits of th_off are replaced.
> > Then the 4 bytes are written back.
> >
> > But should (th_x
On Thursday 05 June 2008 17:56, Rui Paulo wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 05:12:47PM +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marc_L=F6rner_
wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I probably found a bug in declaration of "struct tcphdr"!
> >
> > struct tcphdr {
> > u_short th_sport; /* source port */
> > u_sho
Marc Lörner wrote:
..
First of all I have the problam of misalignment of th_off. Because in this way
always 4 bytes are read and the the bits of th_off are replaced. Then the 4
bytes are written back.
But should (th_x and th_off) not only be 1 byte in whole -> only read and
write 1 byte?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 05:12:47PM +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marc_L=F6rner_ wrote:
> Hello,
> I probably found a bug in declaration of "struct tcphdr"!
>
> struct tcphdr {
> u_short th_sport; /* source port */
> u_short th_dport; /* destination port */
> t
Hello,
I probably found a bug in declaration of "struct tcphdr"!
struct tcphdr {
u_short th_sport; /* source port */
u_short th_dport; /* destination port */
tcp_seq th_seq; /* sequence number */
tcp_seq th_ack;
12 matches
Mail list logo
