[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190110230114.GF149637@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:01:14 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug report: unaligned access with ext4 encryption
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:29:28AM +0200, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 05:28:02PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > Hi Aaro, thanks for the bug report! I think you're on the right track; it makes
> > > much more sense to have the keyrings subsystem store the payload with better
> > > alignment, than to work around the 2-byte alignment in fscrypt.
> > >
> > > But how about '__aligned(__alignof__(u64))' instead? 4 bytes may not be enough.
> > >
> > > David, what do you think?
> >
> > Does that even work?
>
> That should work.
>
> > Might be better to just insert 6 bytes of padding with a comment, but yes I
> > agree that it's probably better to align it to at least machine word size.
>
> Padding is fragile, e.g. if struct rcu_head changes. Using __aligned should
> make it always right automatically.
>
> A.
I agree that __aligned is better. It should work; see 'struct crypto_tfm' in
include/linux/crypto.h for another example of a struct that uses __aligned on a
flexible array at the end.
Aaro, can you send a formal patch? If you don't I'll do so, but I figure I'll
ask first.
Thanks,
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists