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.