From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 04:11:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 04:11:23 -0400 Received: from saturn.cs.uml.edu ([129.63.8.2]:64260 "EHLO saturn.cs.uml.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 04:11:13 -0400 From: "Albert D. Cahalan" Message-Id: <200106090811.f598BBB505292@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Subject: checker suggestion To: engler@csl.Stanford.EDU (Dawson Engler) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 04:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mc@cs.Stanford.EDU In-Reply-To: <200106090759.AAA15771@csl.Stanford.EDU> from "Dawson Engler" at Jun 09, 2001 12:59:24 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Struct padding is a problem. Really, there shouldn't be any implicit padding. This causes: 1. security leaks when such structs are copied to userspace (the implicit padding is uninitialized, and so may contain a chunk of somebody's private key or password) 2. bloat, when struct members could be reordered to eliminate the need for padding