| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 20:25:07 +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" <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sysinfo: include availram field in sysinfo struct
On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 at 04:05, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Pintu Agarwal
> > Sent: 08 January 2022 16:53
> >
> > 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
>
> You need to compare the sizes before and after your patch
> to ensure it doesn't change on any architecture.
Without the changes:
On 32-bit, the size of structure = 64
On 64-bit, the size of structure = 112
With the addition of my new field (availram) if I try to fix the size
issue on one arch, the other arch gets disturbed.
I could fix the same size issue on 64-bit with below changes:
__kernel_ulong_t freeswap; /* swap space still available */
__u16 procs; /* Number of current processes */
__u16 pad; /* Explicit padding for m68k */
+ __u32 mem_unit; /* Memory unit size in bytes
*/ ============> Move the mem_unit up to adjust the padding
__kernel_ulong_t totalhigh; /* Total high memory size */
__kernel_ulong_t freehigh; /* Available high memory size */
- __u32 mem_unit; /* Memory unit size in bytes */
+ __kernel_ulong_t availram; /* Memory available for
allocation */ ========> Add the new field here
- char _f[20-2*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)]; /*
Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
+ char _f[28-3*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)]; /*
Padding: libc5 uses this.. */ ====> Increase the size to 28 (thus _f
becomes 0 like original)
+ //char _f[4];
};
Output with 64-bit build:
$ gcc test-sysinfo.c ; ./a.out
Total RAM: 32715804 kB
Free RAM: 1111296 kB
Size of sysinfo = 112
Size of sysinfo uptime = 8
Size of sysinfo loads = 24
Size of sysinfo totalram = 8
Size of sysinfo pad = 2
Size of sysinfo memunit = 4
Size of sysinfo _f = 0
Output with 32-bit build:
$ gcc test-sysinfo.c -m32 ; ./a.out
Total RAM: 7987 kB
Free RAM: 271 kB
Size of sysinfo = 72
Size of sysinfo uptime = 4
Size of sysinfo loads = 12
Size of sysinfo totalram = 4
Size of sysinfo pad = 2
Size of sysinfo memunit = 4
Size of sysinfo _f = 12
Are there any more suggestions/ideas to experiment with padding
changes before we give-up ?
Can we handle it using : __arch64__ check ?
Or, the only option is to add one more, say: sysinfo64 ?
> > 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 ?
>
> My guess is that someone added a char _f[20] pad to allow for expansion.
> Then two __kernel_ulong_t and one __u32 field were added, so the
> size of the pad was reduced.
> When __kernel_ulong_t is 64bit then it seems to be char _f[0]
> - which might generate a compile warning since you are supposed
> to use char _f[] to indicate an extensible structure.
> There is, however, 4 bytes of pad after the _f[] on most 64bit
> architectures.
>
Thanks, yes even I guessed the same.
> So actually there isn't enough space to anything useful at all.
>
Is this problem does not exist in other UAPI structures ?
Seems like nothing can be done to allow future expansion without
breaking existing things and without developing the new one.
Thanks,
Pintu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists