On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> On Nov 28, 2018, at 5:07 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> 
> >>>> On a different note: how come all of the hyper-v structs are not marked
> >>>> with the “packed" attribute?
> >>> 
> >>> "packed" should not be needed with proper padding; I vaguely remember
> >>> someone (from x86@?) arguing _against_ "packed".
> >> 
> >> Packed needs to be used, when describing fixed format data structures in
> >> hardware or other ABIs, so the compiler cannot put alignment holes into
> >> them.
> >> 
> >> Using packed for generic data structures might result in suboptimal layouts
> >> and prevents layout randomization.
> >
> > Right, I forgot about the structs randomization. So at least for it, the
> > attribute should be needed.
> >
> 
> Not sure when randomization.s used but Hyper-V drivers will of course be
> utterly broken with it.
> 
> > To prevent conflicts, I think that this series should also add the
> > attribute in a first patch, which would be tagged for stable.
> 
> As the patchset doesn't add new definitions and as Paolo already queued
> it I'd go with a follow-up patch adding "packed" to all hyperv-tlfs.h
> structures. The question is how to avoid conflicts when Linus will be
> merging this. We can do:
> - Topic branch in kvm
> - Send the patch to x86, make topic branch and reabse kvm
> - Send the patch to kvm
> - ... ?
> 
> Paolo/Thomas, what would be your preference?

As Paolo already has it, just route it through his tree please.

Thanks,

	tglx