From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765531AbdAJRFe (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:05:34 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f66.google.com ([209.85.214.66]:36410 "EHLO mail-it0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757974AbdAJRFa (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:05:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170110143913.GA3822@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20170110143340.GA3787@gondor.apana.org.au> <20170110143913.GA3822@gondor.apana.org.au> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:05:28 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -onQC6o3XGfwDFSVskb3h3WkbzQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: x86-64: Maintain 16-byte stack alignment To: Herbert Xu Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Crypto Mailing List , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andy Lutomirski , Ard Biesheuvel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Herbert Xu wrote: > > BTW this is with Debian gcc 4.7.2 which does not allow an 8-byte > stack alignment as attempted by the Makefile: I'm pretty sure we have random asm code that may not maintain a 16-byte stack alignment when it calls other code (including, in some cases, calling C code). So I'm not at all convinced that this is a good idea. We shouldn't expect 16-byte alignment to be something trustworthy. Linus