Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:56:30 +0000 From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> To: 'Hannes Frederic Sowa' <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, "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 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa > Sent: 15 December 2016 12:50 > 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. It depends on the architecture. For x86 it is definitely 4. It might be 8 for sparc, ppc and/or alpha. David
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.