[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:50:02 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
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: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable
function
On 15.12.2016 13:28, David Laight wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
>> Sent: 15 December 2016 12:23
> ...
>> Hmm? Even the Intel ABI expects alignment of unsigned long long to be 8
>> bytes on 32 bit. Do you question that?
>
> Yes.
>
> The linux ABI for x86 (32 bit) only requires 32bit alignment for u64 (etc).
Hmm, u64 on 32 bit is unsigned long long and not unsigned long. Thus I
am actually not sure if the ABI would say anything about that (sorry
also for my wrong statement above).
Alignment requirement of unsigned long long on gcc with -m32 actually
seem to be 8.
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.
