linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] GenWQE PCI support, health monitoring and recovery

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]

Message-Id: <201312031605.38972.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:05:38 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	haver@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	utz.bacher@...ibm.com, mmarek@...e.cz, rmallon@...il.com,
	jsvogt@...ibm.com, MIJUNG@...ibm.com, cascardo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	michael@...ra.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] GenWQE PCI support, health monitoring and recovery

On Tuesday 03 December 2013, Frank Haverkamp wrote:
> Ohh, sorry __u64 of course:
> 
> /* common struct for chip image exchange */
> struct genwqe_bitstream {
>         __u64 data_addr;                /* pointer to image data */
>         __u32 size;                     /* size of image file */
>         __u32 crc;                      /* crc of this image */
>         __u8  partition;                /* '0', '1', or 'v' */
>         __u64 target_addr;              /* starting address in Flash */
>         __u8  uid;                      /* 1=host/x=dram */
> 
>         __u64 slu_id;                   /* informational/sim: SluID */
>         __u64 app_id;                   /* informational/sim: AppID */
> 
>         __u16 retc;                     /* returned from processing */
>         __u16 attn;                     /* attention code from
> processing */
>         __u32 progress;                 /* progress code from processing
> */
> };
> 
> and than I do in my userspace application:
> 
>         load.data_addr = (unsigned long)buf;
> 
> Is that ok, or must I consider more?
> 

I haven't followed the recent discussions, jumping into the middle here:
The structure above is not safe for a generic ioctl interface because it
has different padding on x86-32 and x86-64, where __u64 has different
alignment.

You can try to avoid the implicit padding by sorting the members by size,
by making some members larger or by adding explicit padding.

	Arnd
--
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/