Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f3c3694-c00b-aae2-5b08-25bc64bf6372@stressinduktion.org>
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.