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.