linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] atomic: Specify natural alignment for atomic

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: <20250825032743.80641-1-ioworker0@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 11:27:43 +0800
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
To: fthain@...ux-m68k.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	geert@...ux-m68k.org,
	lance.yang@...ux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mhiramat@...nel.org,
	oak@...sinkinet.fi,
	peterz@...radead.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: Specify natural alignment for atomic_t

Hi Finn,

Nice work, thanks for your patch!

On 2025/8/25 10:03, Finn Thain wrote:
> Some recent commits incorrectly assumed the natural alignment of locks.
> That assumption fails on Linux/m68k (and, interestingly, would have failed
> on Linux/cris also). This leads to spurious warnings from the hang check
> code. Fix this bug by adding the necessary 'aligned' attribute.
> 
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> Cc: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> Cc: Eero Tamminen <oak@...sinkinet.fi>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Eero Tamminen <oak@...sinkinet.fi>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMuHMdW7Ab13DdGs2acMQcix5ObJK0O2dG_Fxzr8_g58Rc1_0g@mail.gmail.com/
> Fixes: e711faaafbe5 ("hung_task: replace blocker_mutex with encoded blocker")
> Signed-off-by: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
> ---
> I tested this on m68k using GCC and it fixed the problem for me. AFAIK,
> the other architectures naturally align ints already so I'm expecting to
> see no effect there.

Yeah, it is the correct approach for the spurious warnings on architectures
like m68k, where the natural alignment of types can be less than 4 bytes.

> ---
>   include/linux/types.h | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/types.h b/include/linux/types.h
> index 6dfdb8e8e4c3..cd5b2b0f4b02 100644
> --- a/include/linux/types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/types.h
> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ typedef phys_addr_t resource_size_t;
>   typedef unsigned long irq_hw_number_t;
>   
>   typedef struct {
> -	int counter;
> +	int counter __aligned(sizeof(int));
>   } atomic_t;
>   
>   #define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }

However, as we've seen from the kernel test robot's report on mt6660_chip,
this won't solve the cases where a lock is forced to be unaligned by
#pragma pack(1). That will still trigger warnings, IIUC.

Perhaps we should also apply the follwoing?

diff --git a/include/linux/hung_task.h b/include/linux/hung_task.h
index 34e615c76ca5..940f8f3558f6 100644
--- a/include/linux/hung_task.h
+++ b/include/linux/hung_task.h
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static inline void hung_task_set_blocker(void *lock, unsigned long type)
 	 * If the lock pointer matches the BLOCKER_TYPE_MASK, return
 	 * without writing anything.
 	 */
-	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lock_ptr & BLOCKER_TYPE_MASK))
+	if (lock_ptr & BLOCKER_TYPE_MASK)
 		return;

 	WRITE_ONCE(current->blocker, lock_ptr | type);
@@ -53,8 +53,6 @@ static inline void hung_task_set_blocker(void *lock, unsigned long type)

 static inline void hung_task_clear_blocker(void)
 {
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!READ_ONCE(current->blocker));
-
 	WRITE_ONCE(current->blocker, 0UL);
 }

Let the feature gracefully do nothing on that ;)