> > > > +/*
> > > > + * State component 12 is Control flow Enforcement kernel states
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct cet_kernel_state {
> > > > +       u64 kernel_ssp; /* kernel shadow stack */
> > > > +       u64 pl1_ssp;    /* ring-1 shadow stack */
> > > > +       u64 pl2_ssp;    /* ring-2 shadow stack */
> > > > +} __packed;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Why are these __packed?  It seems like it'll generate bad code for no
> > > obvious purpose.
> >
> > That prevents any possibility that the compiler will insert padding, although in
> > 64-bit kernel this should not happen to either struct.  Also all xstate
> > components here are packed.
> >
> 
> They both seem like bugs, perhaps.  As I understand it, __packed
> removes padding, but it also forces the compiler to expect the fields
> to be unaligned even if they are actually aligned.

This structure is shared with hardware, right? __packed seems like
right thing to do semantically.

As x86 handles unaligned accesses automatically, there should not be
much difference either way.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html