linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] iio: introduce IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH

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: <8a57a332-c2a6-4825-a5f7-d765ea15bd6f@baylibre.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 17:34:10 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
 Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
 Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...aro.org>,
 Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
 Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
 Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] iio: introduce IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS macros

On 4/26/25 6:35 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:08:43 -0500
> David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
> 

...

>> @@ -777,6 +779,42 @@ static inline void *iio_device_get_drvdata(const struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>>   * them safe for use with non-coherent DMA.
>>   */
>>  #define IIO_DMA_MINALIGN ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN
>> +
>> +#define __IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) \
>> +	static_assert(count); \
> 
> Why do we care if count is 0?  Or is intent to check if is constant?
> If the thought is we don't care either way about 0 (as rather nonsensical)
> and this will fail to compile if not constant, then perhaps a comment would
> avoid future confusion?

I would be inclined to just leave out the check. But yes, it is just checking
that count is constant and we don't expect 0.

> 
>> +	type name[ALIGN((count), sizeof(s64) / sizeof(type)) + sizeof(s64) / sizeof(type)]
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS() - Declare a buffer with timestamp
>> + * @type: element type of the buffer
>> + * @name: identifier name of the buffer
>> + * @count: number of elements in the buffer
>> + *
>> + * Declares a buffer that is safe to use with iio_push_to_buffer_with_ts(). In
>> + * addition to allocating enough space for @count elements of @type, it also
>> + * allocates space for a s64 timestamp at the end of the buffer and ensures
>> + * proper alignment of the timestamp.
>> + */
>> +#define IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) \
>> +	__IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) __aligned(sizeof(s64))
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * IIO_DECLARE_DMA_BUFFER_WITH_TS() - Declare a DMA-aligned buffer with timestamp
>> + * @type: element type of the buffer
>> + * @name: identifier name of the buffer
>> + * @count: number of elements in the buffer
>> + *
>> + * Same as IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(), but is uses __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN)
>> + * to ensure that the buffer doesn't share cachelines with anything that comes
>> + * before it in a struct. This should not be used for stack-allocated buffers
>> + * as stack memory cannot generally be used for DMA.
>> + */
>> +#define IIO_DECLARE_DMA_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) \
>> +	__IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS(type, name, count) __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN)
>> +
>> +static_assert(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN % sizeof(s64) == 0,
> That message isn't super helpful if seen in a compile log as we aren't reading the code here
> "IIO_DECLARE_DMA_BUFFER_WITH_TS() assumes that ...
> 
>> +	"macros above assume that IIO_DMA_MINALIGN also ensures s64 timestamp alignment");
>> +

Seems we actually have an arch (openrisc) that triggers this [1]. This arch
doesn't define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN so it falls back to:

#define ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN __alignof__(unsigned long long)

Apparently this is only of those 32-bit arches that only does 4 byte alignment.
>From the official docs [2]:

	Current OR32 implementations (OR1200) do not implement 8 byte alignment,
	but do require 4 byte alignment. Therefore the Application Binary
	Interface (chapter 16) uses 4 byte alignment for 8 byte types. Future
	extensions such as ORVDX64 may require natural alignment.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20250425-iio-introduce-iio_declare_buffer_with_ts-v3-0-f12df1bff248@baylibre.com/T/#m91e0332673438793ff76949037ff40a34765ca30
[2]: https://openrisc.io/or1k.html


It looks like this could work (it compiles for me):

	__aligned(MAX(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN, sizeof(s64)))

If that is OK we could leave out the static_assert(), unless we think there
could be an arch with IIO_DMA_MINALIGN not a power of 2?!