[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080719154115.21334197.jszhang3@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:41:15 +0800
From: JiSheng Zhang <jszhang3@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
To: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
Cc: stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, krh@...hat.com
Subject: Re: PATCH] firewire: add padding to some struct
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:27:44 +0200
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se> wrote:
> JiSheng Zhang writes:
> > Hi,
> > >From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
> > >Reply-To:
> > >To: JiSheng Zhang <jszhang3@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
> > >Subject: Re: PATCH] firewire: add padding to some struct
> > >Date:Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:38:25 +0200
> > >
> > >JiSheng Zhang wrote:
> > > > If p is a pointer to struct fw_cdev_event_response), p->data will point to
> > the
> > > > padding data rather than the right place, it will cause problem under some
>
> Define "the right place". If p->data[] isn't the place for the data,
> then something's seriously wrong with either the producer or the
> consumer of that data -- or the data type definition if either is HW.
>
> > > > platforms. For example, in the function handle_device_event of
> > libraw1394(ported
> > > > to juju stack):
> > > > .....
> > > > case FW_CDEV_EVENT_RESPONSE:
> > > > rc = u64_to_ptr(u->response.closure);
> > > > if (rc->data != NULL)
> > > > memcpy(rc->data, u->response.data, rc->length);//here it will lost the last
> > four
> > > > bytes
> > > > errcode = juju_to_raw1394_errcode(u->response.rcode);
> > > > .....
> > > >
> > > > Although this problem can be solved by add the offset to the pointer, but the
> > > > member:__u32 data[0] lost its original meaning.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what the problem is. As long as both kernel and
> > > library use "response.data" or "&response + offsetof(typeof(response),
> > > data)", they will write and read at the correct location.
> > >
> > This patch can fix the problem while not changing the struct definition.
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > JiSheng
> >
> > --- old/drivers/firewire/fw-cdev.c 2008-07-14 05:51:29.000000000 +0800
> > +++ new/drivers/firewire/fw-cdev.c 2008-07-18 20:20:45.841328585 +0800
> > @@ -382,9 +382,9 @@
> >
> > response->response.type = FW_CDEV_EVENT_RESPONSE;
> > response->response.rcode = rcode;
> > - queue_event(client, &response->event,
> > - &response->response, sizeof(response->response),
> > - response->response.data, response->response.length);
> > + queue_event(client, &response->event, &response->response,
> > + sizeof(response->response) + response->response.length,
> > + NULL, 0);
> > }
>
> Neither of these look correct.
> If sizeof(struct ...) != offsetof(struct ..., data) as you claim is possible,
> then the old code will copy too much to/from ->response but the correct amount
> to/from ->response.data, and the new code will copy too much to/from ->response.data.
The old code will copy 4 extra bytes totally on some platforms, the new code
is correct. The old one queue like this:
struct ...(excluding the padding bytes)|4 padding bytes|4 padding bytes|data
>
> That's why C has offsetof():
>
> queue_event(client, &response->event,
> &response->response,
> offsetof(typeof(*response->responce), data), // I don't know the struct name
> response->response.data, response->response.length);
Bye,
JiSheng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists