linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sysinfo: include availram field in sysinfo struct

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, 8 Jan 2022 22:23:13 +0530
From:   Pintu Agarwal <pintu.ping@...il.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Pintu Kumar <quic_pintu@...cinc.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "christian.brauner@...ntu.com" <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        "sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "legion@...nel.org" <legion@...nel.org>,
        "sashal@...nel.org" <sashal@...nel.org>,
        "gorcunov@...il.com" <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        "chris.hyser@...cle.com" <chris.hyser@...cle.com>,
        "ccross@...gle.com" <ccross@...gle.com>,
        "pcc@...gle.com" <pcc@...gle.com>,
        "dave@...olabs.net" <dave@...olabs.net>,
        "caoxiaofeng@...ong.com" <caoxiaofeng@...ong.com>,
        "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
        "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sysinfo: include availram field in sysinfo struct

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 03:52, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Pintu Kumar
> > Sent: 07 January 2022 18:08
> >
> > The sysinfo member does not have any "available ram" field and
> > the bufferram field is not much helpful either, to get a rough
> > estimate of available ram needed for allocation.
> >
> > One needs to parse MemAvailable field separately from /proc/meminfo
> > to get this info instead of directly getting if from sysinfo itself.
> >
> > Thus, this patch introduce a new field as availram in sysinfo
> > so that all the info total/free/available can be retrieved from
> > one place itself.
> >
> ...
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h b/include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h
> > index 435d5c2..fe84c6a 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h
> > @@ -19,7 +19,8 @@ struct sysinfo {
> >       __kernel_ulong_t totalhigh;     /* Total high memory size */
> >       __kernel_ulong_t freehigh;      /* Available high memory size */
> >       __u32 mem_unit;                 /* Memory unit size in bytes */
> > -     char _f[20-2*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];   /* Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
>
> There are 4 pad bytes here on most 64bit architectures.
>
> > +     __kernel_ulong_t availram;      /* Memory available for allocation */
> > +     char _f[20-3*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];   /* Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
> >  };
>
> You've not compile-time tested the size of the structure.
>
With "32" instead of "20" in padding I get these size of sysinfo:
In x86-64 kernel, with app 64-bit: Size of sysinfo = 128
In x86-64 kernel, with app 32-bit:: Size of sysinfo = 76
In arm-64 kernel, with app 32-bit: Size of sysinfo = 76

Okay the sys robot reported some issue in 64-bit build.
{{{
>> include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h:23:14: error: size of array '_f' is too large
>>    23 |         char _f[20-3*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];   /* Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
>>       |              ^~
}}}

Also, I got the same issue while building for arm64, so I tried to
adjust like this:
char _f[32-3*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];

With this the build works on both 32/64 but output fails when running
32-bit program on 64-bit kernel.
Also, the free command on 64-bit reports "stack smashing error"..

How do we resolve this issue to make it work on both arch ?
Also, I don't really understand the significance of that number "20"
in padding ?

Thanks,
Pintu