[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:11:24 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, "Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add
cryptographically secure hashtable function
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 07:50:36PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> There's no 32-bit platform
>> that will trap on a 64-bit unaligned access because there's no such
>> thing as a 64-bit access there. In short, we're fine.
>
> ARMv7 LPAE is a 32bit architecture that has 64bit load/stores IIRC.
>
> x86 has cmpxchg8b that can do 64bit things and very much wants the u64
> aligned.
>
> Also, IIRC we have a few platforms where u64 doesn't carry 8 byte
> alignment, m68k or something like that, but yes, you likely don't care.
Indeed, I stand corrected. But in any case, the use of __aligned(8) in
the patchset ensures that things are fixed and that we don't have this
issue.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
