[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cc8e3bb0-81f0-070b-5b70-342dc172a1a2@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:59:20 -0600
From: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"subashab@...eaurora.org" <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
"stranche@...eaurora.org" <stranche@...eaurora.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "sharathv@...eaurora.org" <sharathv@...eaurora.org>,
"bjorn.andersson@...aro.org" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
"evgreen@...omium.org" <evgreen@...omium.org>,
"cpratapa@...eaurora.org" <cpratapa@...eaurora.org>,
"elder@...nel.org" <elder@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/6] net: qualcomm: rmnet: don't use C
bit-fields in rmnet checksum header
On 3/8/21 4:18 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Alex Elder
>> Sent: 06 March 2021 03:16
>>
>> Replace the use of C bit-fields in the rmnet_map_ul_csum_header
>> structure with a single two-byte (big endian) structure member,
>> and use field masks to encode or get values within it.
>>
>> Previously rmnet_map_ipv4_ul_csum_header() would update values in
>> the host byte-order fields, and then forcibly fix their byte order
>> using a combination of byte order operations and types.
>>
>> Instead, just compute the value that needs to go into the new
>> structure member and save it with a simple byte-order conversion.
>>
>> Make similar simplifications in rmnet_map_ipv6_ul_csum_header().
>>
>> Finally, in rmnet_map_checksum_uplink_packet() a set of assignments
>> zeroes every field in the upload checksum header. Replace that with
>> a single memset() operation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>> ---
>> v2: Fixed to use u16_encode_bits() instead of be16_encode_bits().
>>
>> .../ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet/rmnet_map_data.c | 34 ++++++-------------
>> include/linux/if_rmnet.h | 21 ++++++------
>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet/rmnet_map_data.c
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet/rmnet_map_data.c
>> index 29d485b868a65..b76ad48da7325 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet/rmnet_map_data.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/rmnet/rmnet_map_data.c
>> @@ -198,23 +198,19 @@ rmnet_map_ipv4_ul_csum_header(void *iphdr,
>> struct rmnet_map_ul_csum_header *ul_header,
>> struct sk_buff *skb)
>> {
>> - __be16 *hdr = (__be16 *)ul_header;
>> struct iphdr *ip4h = iphdr;
>> u16 offset;
>> + u16 val;
>>
>> offset = skb_transport_header(skb) - (unsigned char *)iphdr;
>> ul_header->csum_start_offset = htons(offset);
>>
>> - ul_header->csum_insert_offset = skb->csum_offset;
>> - ul_header->csum_enabled = 1;
>> + val = u16_encode_bits(1, MAP_CSUM_UL_ENABLED_FMASK);
>> if (ip4h->protocol == IPPROTO_UDP)
>> - ul_header->udp_ind = 1;
>> - else
>> - ul_header->udp_ind = 0;
>> + val |= u16_encode_bits(1, MAP_CSUM_UL_UDP_FMASK);
>> + val |= u16_encode_bits(skb->csum_offset, MAP_CSUM_UL_OFFSET_FMASK);
>>
>> - /* Changing remaining fields to network order */
>> - hdr++;
>> - *hdr = htons((__force u16)*hdr);
>> + ul_header->csum_info = htons(val);
>
> Isn't this potentially misaligned?
At first I thought you were talking about column alignment.
The short answer: Yes (at least it's possible)! And
that's a problem elsewhere in the driver. I noticed
that before and confirmed that unaligned accesses *do*
occur in this driver.
I would want to fix that comprehensively (and separate
from this patch), and not just in this one spot. I have
not done it because I am not set up to readily test the
change; unaligned access does not cause a fault on aarch64
(or at least on the platforms I'm using).
Sort of related, I have been meaning to eliminate the
pointless __aligned(1) tags on rmnet structures defined
in <linux/if_rmnet.h>. It wouldn't hurt to use __packed,
though I think they're all 4 or 8 bytes naturally anyway.
Perhaps marking them __aligned(4) would help identify
potential unaligned accesses?
Anyway, assuming you're not talking about tab stops, yes
it's possible this assignment is misaligned. But it's a
bigger problem than what you point out. I will take this
as a sign that I'm not the only one who has this concern,
meaning I should maybe bump the priority on getting this
alignment thing fixed.
-Alex
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists