linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen-block: correctly define structures in public headers

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]

Message-ID: <1386069322.13256.11.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:15:22 +0000
From:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC:	Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@...aro.org>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	BorisOstrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen-block: correctly define structures
 in public headers

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:11 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 03.12.13 at 12:05, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
> >> structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __packed__
> >> should only be used in the backend counterpart of those structures
> >> (which needs to handle different ABIs).
> >> 
> >> This was even worse in the ARM case, where the Linux kernel was
> >> incorrectly using the X86_32 protocol ABI. This patch fixes it, but
> >> also breaks compatibility, so an ARM DomU kernel compiled with
> >> this patch will fail to communicate with PV disk devices unless the
> >> Dom0 also has this patch.
> > 
> > This is acceptable IMHO, the ARM ABI is clearly defined and previous
> > kernels were simply buggy. The fact that front and backend were
> > equivalently buggy and so it happened to work is not an excuse.
> 
> But afaics the change is not just to the ARM form of the ABI,
> but to x86 (32- and 64-bit) too. And that clearly must not be
> altered.

I understood there to be no (intentional) change to the x86 ABIs here.
Obviously that would be a bug in the patch.

Ian.

--
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/