linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] rust: alloc: satisfy `aligned

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]

Message-ID: <uz7llpat4rs55ixdkkvj5uyavy4t4fthk57dasiszhglgldcl5@wp272ippaffa>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 21:31:28 +0100
From: Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nel.org>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>
Cc: DJ Delorie <dj@...hat.com>, Eric Blake <eblake@...hat.com>, 
	Will Newton <will.newton@...aro.org>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, 
	Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, 
	Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rust: alloc: satisfy `aligned_alloc` requirements

Hi Paul,

On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 12:09:40PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2025-02-08 11:19, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > I wonder why glibc silently overaligns aligned_alloc() without reporting
> > an error for an alignment of 2, while it reports an error for an
> > alignment of 3.  It doesn't make much sense at first glance.
> 
> Why doesn't it make sense?
> 
> If the underlying memory management system supports only some power-of-two
> alignments including one alignment greater than 2, it is easy to support
> alignment of 2 by overaligning, but it is not possible to support an
> alignment of 3.

Hmmm, I thought the memory management system could find some
overalignment that would be multiple of 3 and that could work (maybe
3 * page size, as a big hammer).  But maybe some implementation details
just don't allow that, so I guess it's fair to reject it.  Sounds
reasonable.

Do you happen to know why the memalign(3) description says that the
alignment must be a power of two when it doesn't do any validation and
just rounds up as necessary?  I'll send a patch for the manual page, but
it would be good to know if something has changed about it at some
point.  Maybe in the past it did have different requirements?


Have a lovely night!
Alex

	alx@...uan:~/tmp/gcc$ cat overalign.c 
	#define _GNU_SOURCE
	#include <errno.h>
	#include <malloc.h>
	#include <stdlib.h>
	#include <string.h>

	int
	main(void)
	{
		int   i;
		void  *p;

		errno = 0;
		p = aligned_alloc(3, 3);
		printf("aligned_alloc(3, 3): %p; %#m\n", p);

		puts("");
		puts("non-power of two, alignof(void*)");

		errno = 0;
		p = aligned_alloc(24, 24);
		printf("aligned_alloc(24, 24): %p; %#m\n", p);

		puts("");
		puts("Power of two, alignof(void*)");

		errno = 0;
		p = aligned_alloc(8, 8);
		printf("aligned_alloc(8, 8): %p; %#m\n", p);
	}
	alx@...uan:~/tmp/gcc$ cc overalign.c 
	alx@...uan:~/tmp/gcc$ ./a.out 
	aligned_alloc(3, 3): (nil); EINVAL

	non-power of two, alignof(void*)
	aligned_alloc(24, 24): (nil); EINVAL

	Power of two, alignof(void*)
	aligned_alloc(8, 8): 0x55ba005056b0; 0

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)