[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9pz4XudfeqhKBwFNDmp7AYuNwbnevMqB3e6ScPDnUnq9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:06:57 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] secure_seq: use siphash24 instead of md5_transform
Hi David,
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 6:56 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> Just marking the structure __packed, whether necessary or not, makes
> the compiler assume that the members are not aligned and causes
> byte-by-byte accesses to be performed for words.
> Never, _ever_, use __packed unless absolutely necessary, it pessimizes
> the code on cpus that require proper alignment of types.
Oh, jimminy cricket, I did not realize that it made assignments
byte-by-byte *always*. So what options am I left with? What
immediately comes to mind are:
1)
struct {
u64 a;
u32 b;
u32 c;
u16 d;
u8 end[];
} a = {
.a = a,
.b = b,
.c = c,
.d = d
};
siphash24(&a, offsetof(typeof(a), end), key);
2)
u8 bytes[sizeof(u64) + sizeof(u32) * 2 + sizeof(u16)];
*(u64 *)&bytes[0] = a;
*(u32 *)&bytes[sizeof(u64)] = b;
*(u32 *)&bytes[sizeof(u64) + sizeof(u32)] = c;
*(u16 *)&bytes[sizeof(u64) + sizeof(u32) * 2] = d;
siphash24(bytes, sizeof(bytes), key);
Personally I find (1) a bit neater than (2). What's your opinion?
Jason
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.
