linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 26/26] kfifo: DECLARE_KIFO_PTR(fifo, u64) does not work on arm 32 bit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171208120751.5c3d3165@vento.lan>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:07:51 -0200
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Sean Young <sean@...s.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 26/26] kfifo: DECLARE_KIFO_PTR(fifo, u64) does not
 work on arm 32 bit

Em Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:34:10 +0100
Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net> escreveu:

> On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 10:29 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:59:42 +0200
> > Sean Young <sean@...s.org> escreveu:
> >   
> > > If you try to store u64 in a kfifo (or a struct with u64 members),
> > > then the buf member of __STRUCT_KFIFO_PTR will cause 4 bytes
> > > padding due to alignment (note that struct __kfifo is 20 bytes
> > > on 32 bit).
> > > 
> > > That in turn causes the __is_kfifo_ptr() to fail, which is caught
> > > by kfifo_alloc(), which now returns EINVAL.
> > > 
> > > So, ensure that __is_kfifo_ptr() compares to the right structure.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
> > > Acked-by: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>  
> > 
> > Hi Stefani/Andrew,
> > 
> > As this patch is required for the LIRC rework, would be ok if I would
> > merge it via the media tree?
> >   
> 
> It is okay by me. But the question remains why this patch wasn't
> already merged?
> 
> Andrew: Any objections against this patch?


I'm assuming that merging via media tree is ok for Andrew. So, I guess
I'll just go ahead and merge it via my tree.


Thanks,
Mauro