netdev - Re: [RFC] net/hsr: Add support for IEC 62439-3 High-availability Seamless Redundancy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:13 +0000
From:	Arvid Brodin <Arvid.Brodin@...n.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"balferreira@...glemail.com" <balferreira@...glemail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] net/hsr: Add support for IEC 62439-3 High-availability
 Seamless Redundancy

On 2012-04-06 20:19, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 18:06:31 +0100
> Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 17:51 +0200, Arvid Brodin wrote:
>>> David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
>>>> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:55:59 -0700
>>>>
>>>>> That isn't so bad, doing a memcpy versus a structure copy.
>>>>
>>>> GCC is going to inline the memcpy and thus we'll still do the
>>>> unaligned accesses.  This change therefore won't fix the problem.
>>>
>>> Well, it does work for me, with gcc-4.2.2-compiled linux-2.6.37 running
>>> on an AVR32 board.
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, what's the mechanism behind this inline
>>> assignment that turns the memcpy into an unaligned access? If gcc is 
>>> "smart" enough to detect a bunch of char * accesses and turn them 
>>> into unaligned 32-bit accesses, isn't that a bug in gcc?
>>
>> If I remember correctly, casting a char* pointer to foo* where the
>> original pointer isn't properly aligned for type foo results in
>> undefined behaviour.  And that is what icmp_hdr() is doing, so there is
>> no requirement that the compiler does anything reasonable with the
>> result.  Removing that cast (using skb_transport_header() instead of
>> icmp_hdr()) should avoid that.
>>
>> (We do generally assume, however, that if the processor can handle
>> unaligned accesses in a useful way then the compiler will be reasonable
>> and not break them.)
>>
>> Ben.
>>  
>>> Or will this only happen on archs which __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCPY? (But looking
>>> at a couple of arch/xxx/lib/string.c, these too seem to take alignment
>>> into account.)
>>>
>>
> 
> Since icmp_hdr is 64 bits you might be able to use get_unaligned64
> in some way.
> 

I'm sorry, I have no idea how to do this. Besides, get_unaligned64 seems to be implemented
for the "c6x" arch only?

So far we have:

1) icmp_hdr() casts an unaligned char * to a wider type, which is bad (undefined).
2) We cannot use skb_transport_header():

On 2012-04-06 00:31, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 20:21:08 +0100
>>
>> So presumably icmp_hdr() should be changed to skb_transport_header().
>
> I would not say so.  Otherwise we introduce ugly casts everywhere.
>

3) My feeble suggestion to cast icmp_hdr() to (char *) is of course even worse (it doesn't
even avoid the erroneous cast in the first place).

So what do we do?

-- 
Arvid Brodin
Enea Services Stockholm AB - since February 16 a part of Xdin in the Alten Group. Soon we
will be working under the common brand name Xdin. Read more at www.xdin.com.--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html