From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [89.208.246.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 418343A2E2E; Thu, 6 Aug 2026 13:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=89.208.246.23 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786024600; cv=none; b=bhD7h/GSefw9fIN635U/hLFnNyolg5AtZZWHi3ecm4xtohpNbVTmVDUJMGYBTLX/AEDyORwmzuJ9nwU72iehJsgjqj/Yn1T4Me8xDzUpmu6rv9S3R4Uj9udWsT0r3cNQTbaw12XeEoftE4yMU6Wf2EmUIxcMZJ0oXz/aFLud9TY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786024600; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Vy2w8cC5bK0oRApDiki2ndgTJRnwoAqhrO1EgdaQ+Ew=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=r6t8FC7fPhVMShLfxh71peP9BHHbQ5k4T7hDehWVlWpNqSyD9akVosIEkBW2W+5WXEAKKf4JuigE/Vq5vAR/p7RP4nr2WqnZhJUHwKo9WXD1VNHZWVe2yJK0hgrWcNA8MFB6TKQjsTKQqxU6Qqrr4gxpOw2mUcz01rC6xwhwe60= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=xry111.site header.i=@xry111.site header.b=J7gWgQkJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=89.208.246.23 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=xry111.site header.i=@xry111.site header.b="J7gWgQkJ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xry111.site; s=default; t=1786024228; bh=8L7udBp8a9ngID9OyAXZaJi65QmpRWTdBTwoGZK5XD0=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=J7gWgQkJmB9tx2OjOTbulRcw+1tUdMddTJMQLqtNgmLl1CAIuss91C8cSs8JA5J/L UH0gKVcRUN0L9H2qqOXJPNiPIHRbCne55/jxoHGRXy4nDmtdy/1kvcREI/jMhBEza4 1AeZYGcChatSujrjkUZ29LdSRLKGMy1n3iMsam2M= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (2607-8700-5500-e873-0000-0000-0000-1001.16clouds.com [IPv6:2607:8700:5500:e873::1001]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCB6F65983; Thu, 6 Aug 2026 09:50:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] certs: specify byte alignment From: Xi Ruoyao To: Will Deacon , Giuliano Procida Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kexy Biscuit Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 21:50:19 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20250912100015.1267643-1-gprocida@google.com> <20250923081344.1657783-1-gprocida@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Tue, 2025-09-23 at 10:08 +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 09:13:42AM +0100, Giuliano Procida wrote: > > The alignments specified in system_certificates.S and > > revocation_certificates.S are intended to be byte quantities. > >=20 > > However, the .align macro is architecture dependent and on arm64 it > > behaves as .p2align. So use the .balign macro to avoid unnecessary > > padding due to over-alignment. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Giuliano Procida > > --- > > =C2=A0certs/revocation_certificates.S | 4 ++-- > > =C2=A0certs/system_certificates.S=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 | 8 ++++---- > > =C2=A02 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >=20 > Acked-by: Will Deacon >=20 > Will Hi, It seems this patch somehow got lost? Kexy found MIPS is specifically affected by the .align directive: on MIPS it not only behaves as p2align and introduces a lot of extra padding, but also moved before the __revocation_list_end label in the case of __revocation_list_end: .align 8 in revocation_certificates.S. It seems the GNU assembler moves the .align earlier to mimic the IRIX assembler behavior described at page 110 of https://irix7.com/techpubs/007-2418-006.pdf: Labels immediately preceding an automatic or explicit alignment are also realigned. For example, foo: .align 3; .word 0 is the same as .align 3; foo: .word 0. Kexy's AI proposed the same fix as this patch. So maybe we should apply it now? --=20 Xi Ruoyao