From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 17:31:00 +0100 Subject: alignment faults in 3.6 In-Reply-To: References: <20121005071216.GD4625@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20121005082439.GF4625@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <506ED18C.3010009@gmail.com> <20590.58864.527467.746403@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> <506F0454.3070304@gmail.com> <20121005224235.GR4625@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20121006163100.GS4625@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 05:04:33PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5 October 2012 23:42, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 11:37:40PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> The problem is the (__be32 *) casts. This is a normal pointer to a 32-bit, > >> which is assumed to be aligned, and the cast overrides the packed attribute > >> from the struct. Dereferencing these cast expressions must be done with the > >> macros from asm/unaligned.h > > > > Again, not going to happen. > > There are only two options for fixing this: > > 1. Ensure the struct is always aligned. > 2. Declare it packed (and fix casts). > > Refusing to do either leaves us with a broken kernel. Is that what you want? How about you start reading the emails that you receive rather than seemingly insisting that I somehow fix the Linux networking stack - which would involve me talking to someone who has publically tried to oust me from being ARM maintainer, and whom would probably reject any attempt to fix this _because_ I was the person involved in proposing the fix? It's far better that someone else sorts this out, they are much more likely to get a favourable response.