[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJGdDHLcYuRajhsb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 12:14:20 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Harshad Shirwadkar <harshads@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: fix portability problems caused by unaligned
accesses
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:55:44AM -0700, harshad shirwadkar wrote:
> > However, wouldn't it be easier to just add __attribute__((packed)) to the
> > definition of struct journal_block_tag_t?
> While we know that journal_block_tag_t can be unaligned, our code
> should still ensure that we are reading this struct in an
> alignment-safe way (like Ted's patch does). IIUC, using
> __attribute__((packed)) might result in us keeping the door open for
> unaligned accesses in future. If someone tries to read 4 bytes
> starting at &journal_block_tag_t->t_flags, with attribute packed,
> UBSAN won't complain but this may still cause issues on some
> architectures.
I don't understand your concern here. Accesses to a packed struct are assumed
to be unaligned -- that's why I suggested it. The packed attribute is pretty
widely used to implement unaligned accesses in C (as an alternative to memcpy()
or explicit byte-by-byte accesses, both of which also work, though the latter
seems to run into an UBSAN bug in this case).
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists