On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:23:36PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:18, Daniel Kiper <dki...@net-space.pl> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 05:50:58AM -0700, Oliver Steffen wrote: > > > Quoting Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko (2023-08-15 18:14:11) > > > > [...] > > > > > I am not sure what the best way forward is now, but we at least have the > > > patches from Vladimir (thanks!). > > > > > > Pedro, Adrian, could you - if you get a chance - try them with a 4 byte > > > alignment too? > > > > Yes, that would be perfect. If Itanium works then I suggest to align > > GUIDs to 4 bytes. This alignment is used in the kernel for more than > > 4 years and it looks nobody complains... > > > > Pedro, Adrian, could you change GUIDs alignment in Vladimir's patches to > > 4 and test them on Itanium? > > > > Note that itanium is a 64-bit architecture, whereas the potential > alignment/padding issue I raised only occurs on 32-bit systems.
Yeah, I know. But IIRC your Linux kernel patch aligns GUIDs to 4 bytes even on Itanium. So, how does it work on 64-bit architecture and nobody complained for more than 4 years... Hmmm... > So another option is to align GUIDs to __alignof__(void*) Vladimir and I are considering an ifdefery if needed. Or we can potentially use your proposal... Daniel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
