[Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Pavel Emelianov]

From: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>

compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.

This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.

Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>

---

--- a/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c	2006-09-20 07:42:06.000000000 +0400
+++ b/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c	2007-04-13 12:28:08.000000000 +0400
@@ -124,7 +124,9 @@ void br_stp_disable_port(struct net_brid
 /* called under bridge lock */
 void br_stp_change_bridge_id(struct net_bridge *br, const unsigned char *addr)
 {
-	unsigned char oldaddr[6];
+	/* should be aligned on 2 bytes for compare_ether_addr() */
+	unsigned short oldaddr_aligned[ETH_ALEN >> 1];
+	unsigned char *oldaddr = (unsigned char *)oldaddr_aligned;
 	struct net_bridge_port *p;
 	int wasroot;
 
@@ -149,11 +151,14 @@ void br_stp_change_bridge_id(struct net_
 		br_become_root_bridge(br);
 }
 
-static const unsigned char br_mac_zero[6];
+/* should be aligned on 2 bytes for compare_ether_addr() */
+static const unsigned short br_mac_zero_aligned[ETH_ALEN >> 1];
 
 /* called under bridge lock */
 void br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id(struct net_bridge *br)
 {
+	const unsigned char *br_mac_zero =
+			(const unsigned char *)br_mac_zero_aligned;
 	const unsigned char *addr = br_mac_zero;
 	struct net_bridge_port *p;
 

[BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Pavel Emelianov]

From: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>

compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.

This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.

Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>

---

--- a/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c	2006-09-20 07:42:06.000000000 +0400
+++ b/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c	2007-04-13 12:28:08.000000000 +0400
@@ -124,7 +124,9 @@ void br_stp_disable_port(struct net_brid
 /* called under bridge lock */
 void br_stp_change_bridge_id(struct net_bridge *br, const unsigned char *addr)
 {
-	unsigned char oldaddr[6];
+	/* should be aligned on 2 bytes for compare_ether_addr() */
+	unsigned short oldaddr_aligned[ETH_ALEN >> 1];
+	unsigned char *oldaddr = (unsigned char *)oldaddr_aligned;
 	struct net_bridge_port *p;
 	int wasroot;
 
@@ -149,11 +151,14 @@ void br_stp_change_bridge_id(struct net_
 		br_become_root_bridge(br);
 }
 
-static const unsigned char br_mac_zero[6];
+/* should be aligned on 2 bytes for compare_ether_addr() */
+static const unsigned short br_mac_zero_aligned[ETH_ALEN >> 1];
 
 /* called under bridge lock */
 void br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id(struct net_bridge *br)
 {
+	const unsigned char *br_mac_zero =
+			(const unsigned char *)br_mac_zero_aligned;
 	const unsigned char *addr = br_mac_zero;
 	struct net_bridge_port *p;
 

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:49:30 +0400

> From: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> 
> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
> 
> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>

Patch applied, thank you.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:49:30 +0400

> From: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> 
> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
> 
> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>

Patch applied, thank you.

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Stephen Hemminger]

David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:49:30 +0400
>
>   
>> From: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
>>
>> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
>> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
>>
>> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
>> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
>> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
>>     
>
> Patch applied, thank you.
>   
I had a better way, I'll fix.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Stephen Hemminger]

David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:49:30 +0400
>
>   
>> From: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
>>
>> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
>> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
>>
>> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
>> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
>> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
>>     
>
> Patch applied, thank you.
>   
I had a better way, I'll fix.

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:55:41 -0700

> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:49:30 +0400
> >
> >   
> >> From: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> >>
> >> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
> >> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
> >>
> >> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
> >> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
> >> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
> >>     
> >
> > Patch applied, thank you.
> >   
> I had a better way, I'll fix.

You better hurry I want today's fixes I applied out to Linus this
afternoon.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:55:41 -0700

> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:49:30 +0400
> >
> >   
> >> From: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> >>
> >> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
> >> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
> >>
> >> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
> >> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
> >> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
> >>     
> >
> > Patch applied, thank you.
> >   
> I had a better way, I'll fix.

You better hurry I want today's fixes I applied out to Linus this
afternoon.

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Stephen Hemminger]

The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
this instead.

compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.

This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.

Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>

---

--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c	2007-04-16
20:03:04.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c
2007-04-17 13:25:52.000000000 -0700 @@ -126,23 +126,22 @@
 /* called under bridge lock */
 void br_stp_change_bridge_id(struct net_bridge *br, const unsigned
char *addr) {
-	unsigned char oldaddr[6];
+	bridge_id old_id;
 	struct net_bridge_port *p;
 	int wasroot;
 
 	wasroot = br_is_root_bridge(br);
 
-	memcpy(oldaddr, br->bridge_id.addr, ETH_ALEN);
+	old_id = br->bridge_id;
 	memcpy(br->bridge_id.addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
 	memcpy(br->dev->dev_addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
 
 	list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) {
-		if (!compare_ether_addr(p->designated_bridge.addr,
oldaddr))
+		if (!compare_ether_addr(p->designated_bridge.addr,
old_id.addr)) memcpy(p->designated_bridge.addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
 
-		if (!compare_ether_addr(p->designated_root.addr,
oldaddr))
+		if (!compare_ether_addr(p->designated_root.addr,
old_id.addr)) memcpy(p->designated_root.addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
-
 	}
 
 	br_configuration_update(br);
@@ -151,19 +150,17 @@
 		br_become_root_bridge(br);
 }
 
-static const unsigned char br_mac_zero[6];
-
 /* called under bridge lock */
 void br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id(struct net_bridge *br)
 {
-	const unsigned char *addr = br_mac_zero;
+	static const bridge_id id_zero;
+	const unsigned char *addr = id_zero.addr;
 	struct net_bridge_port *p;
 
 	list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) {
-		if (addr == br_mac_zero ||
+		if (addr == id_zero.addr ||
 		    memcmp(p->dev->dev_addr, addr, ETH_ALEN) < 0)
 			addr = p->dev->dev_addr;
-
 	}
 
 	if (compare_ether_addr(br->bridge_id.addr, addr))
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
 {
 	unsigned char	prio[2];
 	unsigned char	addr[6];
-};
+} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
 
 struct mac_addr
 {

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Stephen Hemminger]

The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
this instead.

compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.

This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.

Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>

---

--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c	2007-04-16
20:03:04.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c
2007-04-17 13:25:52.000000000 -0700 @@ -126,23 +126,22 @@
 /* called under bridge lock */
 void br_stp_change_bridge_id(struct net_bridge *br, const unsigned
char *addr) {
-	unsigned char oldaddr[6];
+	bridge_id old_id;
 	struct net_bridge_port *p;
 	int wasroot;
 
 	wasroot = br_is_root_bridge(br);
 
-	memcpy(oldaddr, br->bridge_id.addr, ETH_ALEN);
+	old_id = br->bridge_id;
 	memcpy(br->bridge_id.addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
 	memcpy(br->dev->dev_addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
 
 	list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) {
-		if (!compare_ether_addr(p->designated_bridge.addr,
oldaddr))
+		if (!compare_ether_addr(p->designated_bridge.addr,
old_id.addr)) memcpy(p->designated_bridge.addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
 
-		if (!compare_ether_addr(p->designated_root.addr,
oldaddr))
+		if (!compare_ether_addr(p->designated_root.addr,
old_id.addr)) memcpy(p->designated_root.addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
-
 	}
 
 	br_configuration_update(br);
@@ -151,19 +150,17 @@
 		br_become_root_bridge(br);
 }
 
-static const unsigned char br_mac_zero[6];
-
 /* called under bridge lock */
 void br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id(struct net_bridge *br)
 {
-	const unsigned char *addr = br_mac_zero;
+	static const bridge_id id_zero;
+	const unsigned char *addr = id_zero.addr;
 	struct net_bridge_port *p;
 
 	list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) {
-		if (addr == br_mac_zero ||
+		if (addr == id_zero.addr ||
 		    memcmp(p->dev->dev_addr, addr, ETH_ALEN) < 0)
 			addr = p->dev->dev_addr;
-
 	}
 
 	if (compare_ether_addr(br->bridge_id.addr, addr))
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
 {
 	unsigned char	prio[2];
 	unsigned char	addr[6];
-};
+} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
 
 struct mac_addr
 {

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:37:23 -0700

> The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
> the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
> this instead.
> 
> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
> 
> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>

bridge_id would be aligned by luck, because it is composed of char's
there is no explicit reason it should be aligned on at least an
unsigned short boundary.

I like the other patch much better, it provided explicit alignment and
is guarenteed to get rid of the problem.

Indeed, I wrote a test program on 32-bit Sparc to validate this:

struct bridge_id {
	unsigned char a[6];
	unsigned char b[6];
};

extern void bar(unsigned char *, unsigned char *);

void foo(void)
{
	unsigned char a;
	struct bridge_id b;

	bar(&b.a[0], &a);
}

foo() gets compiled like this:

foo:
	save	%sp, -120, %sp
	add	%fp, -21, %o0
	call	bar, 0
	 add	%fp, -9, %o1
	jmp	%i7+8
	 restore

See?  The bridge_id (passed in via %o0) is on an odd byte boundary
on the stack.

So your patch isn't fixing the bug at all.

I'm going to apply the original patch, because that one will
actually fix the problem and was actually tested on a system
that saw the problem.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:37:23 -0700

> The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
> the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
> this instead.
> 
> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
> 
> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>

bridge_id would be aligned by luck, because it is composed of char's
there is no explicit reason it should be aligned on at least an
unsigned short boundary.

I like the other patch much better, it provided explicit alignment and
is guarenteed to get rid of the problem.

Indeed, I wrote a test program on 32-bit Sparc to validate this:

struct bridge_id {
	unsigned char a[6];
	unsigned char b[6];
};

extern void bar(unsigned char *, unsigned char *);

void foo(void)
{
	unsigned char a;
	struct bridge_id b;

	bar(&b.a[0], &a);
}

foo() gets compiled like this:

foo:
	save	%sp, -120, %sp
	add	%fp, -21, %o0
	call	bar, 0
	 add	%fp, -9, %o1
	jmp	%i7+8
	 restore

See?  The bridge_id (passed in via %o0) is on an odd byte boundary
on the stack.

So your patch isn't fixing the bug at all.

I'm going to apply the original patch, because that one will
actually fix the problem and was actually tested on a system
that saw the problem.

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Eric Dumazet]

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:37:23 -0700
> 
>> The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
>> the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
>> this instead.
>>
>> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
>> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
>>
>> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
>> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
>> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
> 
> bridge_id would be aligned by luck, because it is composed of char's
> there is no explicit reason it should be aligned on at least an
> unsigned short boundary.
> 
> I like the other patch much better, it provided explicit alignment and
> is guarenteed to get rid of the problem.
> 
> Indeed, I wrote a test program on 32-bit Sparc to validate this:
> 
> struct bridge_id {
> 	unsigned char a[6];
> 	unsigned char b[6];
> };
> 
> extern void bar(unsigned char *, unsigned char *);
> 
> void foo(void)
> {
> 	unsigned char a;
> 	struct bridge_id b;
> 
> 	bar(&b.a[0], &a);
> }
> 
> foo() gets compiled like this:
> 
> foo:
> 	save	%sp, -120, %sp
> 	add	%fp, -21, %o0
> 	call	bar, 0
> 	 add	%fp, -9, %o1
> 	jmp	%i7+8
> 	 restore
> 
> See?  The bridge_id (passed in via %o0) is on an odd byte boundary
> on the stack.
> 
> So your patch isn't fixing the bug at all.
> 
> I'm going to apply the original patch, because that one will
> actually fix the problem and was actually tested on a system
> that saw the problem.

I suspect you missed part of Stephen patch :

(maybe some mailer problem...)

--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
  {
  	unsigned char	prio[2];
  	unsigned char	addr[6];
-};
+} __attribute__((aligned(8)));

  struct mac_addr
  {

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Eric Dumazet]

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:37:23 -0700
> 
>> The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
>> the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
>> this instead.
>>
>> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
>> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
>>
>> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
>> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
>> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
> 
> bridge_id would be aligned by luck, because it is composed of char's
> there is no explicit reason it should be aligned on at least an
> unsigned short boundary.
> 
> I like the other patch much better, it provided explicit alignment and
> is guarenteed to get rid of the problem.
> 
> Indeed, I wrote a test program on 32-bit Sparc to validate this:
> 
> struct bridge_id {
> 	unsigned char a[6];
> 	unsigned char b[6];
> };
> 
> extern void bar(unsigned char *, unsigned char *);
> 
> void foo(void)
> {
> 	unsigned char a;
> 	struct bridge_id b;
> 
> 	bar(&b.a[0], &a);
> }
> 
> foo() gets compiled like this:
> 
> foo:
> 	save	%sp, -120, %sp
> 	add	%fp, -21, %o0
> 	call	bar, 0
> 	 add	%fp, -9, %o1
> 	jmp	%i7+8
> 	 restore
> 
> See?  The bridge_id (passed in via %o0) is on an odd byte boundary
> on the stack.
> 
> So your patch isn't fixing the bug at all.
> 
> I'm going to apply the original patch, because that one will
> actually fix the problem and was actually tested on a system
> that saw the problem.

I suspect you missed part of Stephen patch :

(maybe some mailer problem...)

--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
  {
  	unsigned char	prio[2];
  	unsigned char	addr[6];
-};
+} __attribute__((aligned(8)));

  struct mac_addr
  {

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:24:36 +0200

> I suspect you missed part of Stephen patch :
> 
> (maybe some mailer problem...)

My bad, sorry :(

I pushed the other version of the fix to Linus just now.
I'll put Stephen's version in if he sends me a fixup relative
to that.

Sorry again.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:24:36 +0200

> I suspect you missed part of Stephen patch :
> 
> (maybe some mailer problem...)

My bad, sorry :(

I pushed the other version of the fix to Linus just now.
I'll put Stephen's version in if he sends me a fixup relative
to that.

Sorry again.

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Pavel Emelianov]

[snip]

> --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
> 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
> 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>  {
>  	unsigned char	prio[2];
>  	unsigned char	addr[6];
> -};
> +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));

Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...

>  struct mac_addr
>  {
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Pavel Emelianov]

[snip]

> --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
> 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
> 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>  {
>  	unsigned char	prio[2];
>  	unsigned char	addr[6];
> -};
> +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));

Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...

>  struct mac_addr
>  {
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400

> [snip]
> 
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
> > 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> >  {
> >  	unsigned char	prio[2];
> >  	unsigned char	addr[6];
> > -};
> > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> 
> Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...

Actually it could be made "2", the aligned() attribute is
in bytes, not bits.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400

> [snip]
> 
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
> > 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> >  {
> >  	unsigned char	prio[2];
> >  	unsigned char	addr[6];
> > -};
> > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> 
> Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...

Actually it could be made "2", the aligned() attribute is
in bytes, not bits.

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Pavel Emelianov]

David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
> 
>> [snip]
>>
>>> --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
>>> 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
>>> 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>>>  {
>>>  	unsigned char	prio[2];
>>>  	unsigned char	addr[6];
>>> -};
>>> +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>> Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...
> 
> Actually it could be made "2", the aligned() attribute is
> in bytes, not bits.

Indeed :) My bad :( Thank you...

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Pavel Emelianov]

David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
> 
>> [snip]
>>
>>> --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
>>> 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
>>> 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
>>>  {
>>>  	unsigned char	prio[2];
>>>  	unsigned char	addr[6];
>>> -};
>>> +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>> Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...
> 
> Actually it could be made "2", the aligned() attribute is
> in bytes, not bits.

Indeed :) My bad :( Thank you...

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
> 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
> > > 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > > 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> > >  {
> > >  	unsigned char	prio[2];
> > >  	unsigned char	addr[6];
> > > -};
> > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> > 
> > Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...
> 
> Actually it could be made "2", the aligned() attribute is
> in bytes, not bits.

It could be 2 but 8 might allow a compiler on a 64 bit platform
to be smarter in comparisons and assignments. For 2.6.22, I'll make
a nicer version similar to ktime_t.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
> 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
> > > 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > > 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> > >  {
> > >  	unsigned char	prio[2];
> > >  	unsigned char	addr[6];
> > > -};
> > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> > 
> > Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...
> 
> Actually it could be made "2", the aligned() attribute is
> in bytes, not bits.

It could be 2 but 8 might allow a compiler on a 64 bit platform
to be smarter in comparisons and assignments. For 2.6.22, I'll make
a nicer version similar to ktime_t.

Re: [Bridge] [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:44:39 -0700

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
> > 
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
> > > > 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > > > 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> > > >  {
> > > >  	unsigned char	prio[2];
> > > >  	unsigned char	addr[6];
> > > > -};
> > > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> > > 
> > > Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...
> > 
> > Actually it could be made "2", the aligned() attribute is
> > in bytes, not bits.
> 
> It could be 2 but 8 might allow a compiler on a 64 bit platform
> to be smarter in comparisons and assignments.

Absolutely.

Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
branch.

We could add some alignment tests to the ethernet address
comparison code, but it's probably more trouble than it's
worth.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:44:39 -0700

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru>
> > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
> > 
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
> > > > 13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > > > 2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> > > >  {
> > > >  	unsigned char	prio[2];
> > > >  	unsigned char	addr[6];
> > > > -};
> > > > +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> > > 
> > > Why "8"? Mustn't it be "16"? Address is to be 2-bytes aligned...
> > 
> > Actually it could be made "2", the aligned() attribute is
> > in bytes, not bits.
> 
> It could be 2 but 8 might allow a compiler on a 64 bit platform
> to be smarter in comparisons and assignments.

Absolutely.

Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
branch.

We could add some alignment tests to the ethernet address
comparison code, but it's probably more trouble than it's
worth.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Eric Dumazet]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> 
> Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
> use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
> comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
> don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
> branch.

Again, memcmp() *cannot* be optimized, because its semantic is to compare bytes.

memcpy() can take into account alignement if known at compile time, not memcmp()

http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/13/31


> 
> We could add some alignment tests to the ethernet address
> comparison code, but it's probably more trouble than it's
> worth.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
-- 
Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Eric Dumazet]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> 
> Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
> use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
> comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
> don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
> branch.

Again, memcmp() *cannot* be optimized, because its semantic is to compare bytes.

memcpy() can take into account alignement if known at compile time, not memcmp()

http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/13/31


> 
> We could add some alignment tests to the ethernet address
> comparison code, but it's probably more trouble than it's
> worth.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
-- 
Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200
Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
> > use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
> > comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
> > don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
> > branch.
> 
> Again, memcmp() *cannot* be optimized, because its semantic is to compare bytes.
> 
> memcpy() can take into account alignement if known at compile time, not memcmp()
> 
> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/13/31

It can if we order bytes in the bridge id properly.  See ktime_t for example.

Re: Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200
Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
> > use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
> > comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
> > don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
> > branch.
> 
> Again, memcmp() *cannot* be optimized, because its semantic is to compare bytes.
> 
> memcpy() can take into account alignement if known at compile time, not memcmp()
> 
> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/13/31

It can if we order bytes in the bridge id properly.  See ktime_t for example.

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
> > use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
> > comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
> > don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
> > branch.
> 
> Again, memcmp() *cannot* be optimized, because its semantic is to compare bytes.
> 
> memcpy() can take into account alignement if known at compile time, not memcmp()
> 
> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/13/31

I was prehaps thinking about strlen() where I know several
implementations work a word at a time even though it is
a byte-based operation:

--------------------
#define LO_MAGIC 0x01010101
#define HI_MAGIC 0x80808080
 ...
	 sethi	%hi(HI_MAGIC), %o4
 ...
	 or	%o4, %lo(HI_MAGIC), %o3
 ...
	 sethi	%hi(LO_MAGIC), %o4
 ...
	 or	%o4, %lo(LO_MAGIC), %o2
 ...
8:
	ld	[%o0], %o5
2:
	sub	%o5, %o2, %o4
	andcc	%o4, %o3, %g0
	be,pt	%icc, 8b
	 add	%o0, 4, %o0
--------------------

I figured some similar trick could be done with strcmp() and
memcmp().

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[David Miller]

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
> > use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
> > comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
> > don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
> > branch.
> 
> Again, memcmp() *cannot* be optimized, because its semantic is to compare bytes.
> 
> memcpy() can take into account alignement if known at compile time, not memcmp()
> 
> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/13/31

I was prehaps thinking about strlen() where I know several
implementations work a word at a time even though it is
a byte-based operation:

--------------------
#define LO_MAGIC 0x01010101
#define HI_MAGIC 0x80808080
 ...
	 sethi	%hi(HI_MAGIC), %o4
 ...
	 or	%o4, %lo(HI_MAGIC), %o3
 ...
	 sethi	%hi(LO_MAGIC), %o4
 ...
	 or	%o4, %lo(LO_MAGIC), %o2
 ...
8:
	ld	[%o0], %o5
2:
	sub	%o5, %o2, %o4
	andcc	%o4, %o3, %g0
	be,pt	%icc, 8b
	 add	%o0, 4, %o0
--------------------

I figured some similar trick could be done with strcmp() and
memcmp().

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Eric Dumazet]

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200
> 
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
>>> use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
>>> comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
>>> don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
>>> branch.
>> Again, memcmp() *cannot* be optimized, because its semantic is to compare bytes.
>>
>> memcpy() can take into account alignement if known at compile time, not memcmp()
>>
>> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/13/31
> 
> I was prehaps thinking about strlen() where I know several
> implementations work a word at a time even though it is
> a byte-based operation:
> 
> --------------------
> #define LO_MAGIC 0x01010101
> #define HI_MAGIC 0x80808080
>  ...
> 	 sethi	%hi(HI_MAGIC), %o4
>  ...
> 	 or	%o4, %lo(HI_MAGIC), %o3
>  ...
> 	 sethi	%hi(LO_MAGIC), %o4
>  ...
> 	 or	%o4, %lo(LO_MAGIC), %o2
>  ...
> 8:
> 	ld	[%o0], %o5
> 2:
> 	sub	%o5, %o2, %o4
> 	andcc	%o4, %o3, %g0
> 	be,pt	%icc, 8b
> 	 add	%o0, 4, %o0
> --------------------
> 
> I figured some similar trick could be done with strcmp() and
> memcmp().
> 
> 

Hum, I was refering to IA64 (or the more spreaded x86 arches), that is litle 
endian AFAIK.

On big endian machines, a compiler can indeed perform some word tricks for 
memcmp() if it knows at compile time both pointers are word aligned.

PowerPc example (xlc compiler)

int func(const unsigned int *a, const unsigned int *b)
{
return memcmp(a, b, 6);
}

.func:                                  # 0x00000000 (H.10.NO_SYMBOL)
         l       r5,0(r3)
         l       r0,0(r4)
         cmp     0,r5,r0
         bc      BO_IF_NOT,CR0_EQ,__L2c
         lhz     r3,4(r3)
         lhz     r0,4(r4)
         sf      r0,r0,r3
         sfze    r3,r0
         a       r0,r3,r0
         aze     r3,r0
         bcr     BO_ALWAYS,CR0_LT
__L2c:                                  # 0x0000002c (H.10.NO_SYMBOL+0x2c)
         sf      r0,r0,r5
         sfze    r3,r0
         a       r0,r3,r0
         aze     r3,r0
         bcr     BO_ALWAYS,CR0_LT


But to compare 6 bytes, known to be aligned to even addresses, current code is 
just fine and portable. We *could* use arch/endian specific tricks to save one 
or two cycles, but who really wants that ?

Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

[Eric Dumazet]

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200
> 
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
>>> use memcmp().  It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
>>> comparisons when both objects are aligned correctly but we also
>>> don't want it to use any more than one potentially mispredicted
>>> branch.
>> Again, memcmp() *cannot* be optimized, because its semantic is to compare bytes.
>>
>> memcpy() can take into account alignement if known at compile time, not memcmp()
>>
>> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2007/03/13/31
> 
> I was prehaps thinking about strlen() where I know several
> implementations work a word at a time even though it is
> a byte-based operation:
> 
> --------------------
> #define LO_MAGIC 0x01010101
> #define HI_MAGIC 0x80808080
>  ...
> 	 sethi	%hi(HI_MAGIC), %o4
>  ...
> 	 or	%o4, %lo(HI_MAGIC), %o3
>  ...
> 	 sethi	%hi(LO_MAGIC), %o4
>  ...
> 	 or	%o4, %lo(LO_MAGIC), %o2
>  ...
> 8:
> 	ld	[%o0], %o5
> 2:
> 	sub	%o5, %o2, %o4
> 	andcc	%o4, %o3, %g0
> 	be,pt	%icc, 8b
> 	 add	%o0, 4, %o0
> --------------------
> 
> I figured some similar trick could be done with strcmp() and
> memcmp().
> 
> 

Hum, I was refering to IA64 (or the more spreaded x86 arches), that is litle 
endian AFAIK.

On big endian machines, a compiler can indeed perform some word tricks for 
memcmp() if it knows at compile time both pointers are word aligned.

PowerPc example (xlc compiler)

int func(const unsigned int *a, const unsigned int *b)
{
return memcmp(a, b, 6);
}

.func:                                  # 0x00000000 (H.10.NO_SYMBOL)
         l       r5,0(r3)
         l       r0,0(r4)
         cmp     0,r5,r0
         bc      BO_IF_NOT,CR0_EQ,__L2c
         lhz     r3,4(r3)
         lhz     r0,4(r4)
         sf      r0,r0,r3
         sfze    r3,r0
         a       r0,r3,r0
         aze     r3,r0
         bcr     BO_ALWAYS,CR0_LT
__L2c:                                  # 0x0000002c (H.10.NO_SYMBOL+0x2c)
         sf      r0,r0,r5
         sfze    r3,r0
         a       r0,r3,r0
         aze     r3,r0
         bcr     BO_ALWAYS,CR0_LT


But to compare 6 bytes, known to be aligned to even addresses, current code is 
just fine and portable. We *could* use arch/endian specific tricks to save one 
or two cycles, but who really wants that ?