linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] hpsa: add an assert to prevent from _

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]

Date:   Sat, 3 Apr 2021 15:51:48 +0100
From:   Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>
To:     "Elliott, Robert (Servers)" <elliott@....com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "John Paul Adrian Glaubitz" <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        Don Brace - C33706 <don.brace@...rochip.com>,
        "linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
        "storagedev@...rochip.com" <storagedev@...rochip.com>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jszczype@...hat.com" <jszczype@...hat.com>,
        Scott Benesh <scott.benesh@...rochip.com>,
        Scott Teel <scott.teel@...rochip.com>,
        "thenzl@...hat.com" <thenzl@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] hpsa: add an assert to prevent from __packed
 reintroduction

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 14:40:39 +0000
"Elliott, Robert (Servers)" <elliott@....com> wrote:

> It looks like ia64 implements atomic_t as a 64-bit value and expects atomic_t
> to be 64-bit aligned, but does nothing to ensure that.
> 
> For x86, atomic_t is a 32-bit value and atomic64_t is a 64-bit value, and
> the definition of atomic64_t is overridden in a way that ensures
> 64-bit (8 byte) alignment:
> 
> Generic definitions are in include/linux/types.h:
>     typedef struct {
>             int counter;
>     } atomic_t;
> 
>     #define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }
> 
>     #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>     typedef struct {
>             s64 counter;
>     } atomic64_t;
>     #endif
> 
> Override in arch/x86/include/asm/atomic64_32.h:
>     typedef struct {
>             s64 __aligned(8) counter;
>     } atomic64_t;
> 
> Perhaps ia64 needs to take over the definition of both atomic_t and atomic64_t
> and do the same?

I don't think it's needed. ia64 is a 64-bit arch with expected
natural alignment for s64: alignof(s64)=8.

Also if my understanding is correct adding __aligned(8) would not fix
use case of embedding locks into packed structs even on x86_64 (or i386):

    $ cat a.c
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <stddef.h>

    typedef struct { unsigned long long __attribute__((aligned(8))) l; } lock_t;
    struct s { char c; lock_t lock; } __attribute__((packed));
    int main() { printf ("offsetof(struct s, lock) = %lu\nsizeof(struct s) = %lu\n", offsetof(struct s, lock), sizeof(struct s)); }

    $ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc a.c -o a && ./a
    offsetof(struct s, lock) = 1
    sizeof(struct s) = 9

    $ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc a.c -o a -m32 && ./a
    offsetof(struct s, lock) = 1
    sizeof(struct s) = 9

Note how alignment of 'lock' stays 1 byte in both cases.

8-byte alignment added for i386 in
    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=bbf2a330d92c5afccfd17592ba9ccd50f41cf748
is only as a performance optimization (not a correctness fix).

Larger alignment on i386 is preferred because alignof(s64)=4 on
that target which might make atomic op span cache lines that
leads to performance degradation.

-- 

  Sergei