netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/6] perf: Add new type PERF_TYPE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:59:54 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        <mingo@...hat.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] perf: Add new type PERF_TYPE_PROBE

On 11/24/17 12:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:31:29PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> unfortunately 32-bit is more screwed than it seems:
>>
>> $ cat align.c
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> struct S {
>>   unsigned long long a;
>> } s;
>>
>> struct U {
>>   unsigned long long a;
>> } u;
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>         printf("%d, %d\n", sizeof(unsigned long long),
>>                __alignof__(unsigned long long));
>>         printf("%d, %d\n", sizeof(s), __alignof__(s));
>>         printf("%d, %d\n", sizeof(u), __alignof__(u));
>> }
>> $ gcc -m32 align.c
>> $ ./a.out
>> 8, 8
>> 8, 4
>> 8, 4
>
> *blink* how is that even correct? I understood the spec to say the
> alignment of composite types should be the max alignment of any of its
> member types (otherwise it cannot guarantee the alignment of its
> members).
>
>> so we have to use __aligned_u64 in uapi.
>
> Ideally yes, but effectively it most often doesn't matter.
>
>> Otherwise, yes, we could have used config1 and config2 to pass pointers
>> to the kernel, but since they're defined as __u64 already we cannot
>> change them and have to do this ugly dance around 'config' field.
>
> I don't understand the reasoning why you cannot use them. Even if they
> are not naturally aligned on x86_32, why would it matter?
>
> x86_32 needs two loads in any case, but there is no concurrency, so
> split loads is not a problem. Add to that that 'intptr_t' on ILP32
> is in fact only a single u32 and thus the other u32 will always be 0.
>
> So yes, alignment is screwy, but I really don't see who cares and why it
> would matter in practise.

If we were poking into 'struct perf_event_attr __user *uptr'
directly like get|put_user(.., &uptr->config)
then 32-bit user space with 4-byte aligned u64s would cause
64-bit kernel to trap on archs like sparc.
But in this case you're right. We can use config[12] as-is, since these
u64 fields are passing the value one way only (into the kernel) and
we do full perf_copy_attr() first and all further accesses are from
copied structure and u64_to_user_ptr(event->attr.config) will be fine.

Do you mind we do
union {
  __u64 file_path;
  __u64 func_name;
  __u64 config;
};
and similar with config1 ?
Or prefer that we use 'config/config1' to store string+offset there?
I think config/config1 is cleaner than config1/config2