[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimxm84Qm+31Hab7QwLhrVEurkKQNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:16:52 -0400
From: Dan Rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: "Steven M. Christey" <coley@...us.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: CVE request: kernel: inet_diag: fix inet_diag_bc_audit()
>> Also make sure each instruction is aligned on 4 bytes boundary, to avoid
>> unaligned accesses.
>
> Should this get a seperate ID?
>
AFAIK, on some architectures, unaligned accesses will generate a
fault, which will be handled by emulating the access via byte-size
loads and stores (for example). So while unaligned accesses like this
should be avoided, I don't think there's a security impact. Anyone
who knows better, please correct me if I'm wrong.
-Dan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
