netdev - Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46253B14.8030401@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:24:36 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, xemul@...ru,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.osdl.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [BRIDGE] Unaligned access on IA64 when comparing ethernet addresses

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:37:23 -0700
> 
>> The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
>> the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
>> this instead.
>>
>> compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
>> passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
>>
>> This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
>> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
>> is unsigned char *, and thus may not be 2-bytes aligned.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Evgeny Kravtsunov <emkravts@...nvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
> 
> bridge_id would be aligned by luck, because it is composed of char's
> there is no explicit reason it should be aligned on at least an
> unsigned short boundary.
> 
> I like the other patch much better, it provided explicit alignment and
> is guarenteed to get rid of the problem.
> 
> Indeed, I wrote a test program on 32-bit Sparc to validate this:
> 
> struct bridge_id {
> 	unsigned char a[6];
> 	unsigned char b[6];
> };
> 
> extern void bar(unsigned char *, unsigned char *);
> 
> void foo(void)
> {
> 	unsigned char a;
> 	struct bridge_id b;
> 
> 	bar(&b.a[0], &a);
> }
> 
> foo() gets compiled like this:
> 
> foo:
> 	save	%sp, -120, %sp
> 	add	%fp, -21, %o0
> 	call	bar, 0
> 	 add	%fp, -9, %o1
> 	jmp	%i7+8
> 	 restore
> 
> See?  The bridge_id (passed in via %o0) is on an odd byte boundary
> on the stack.
> 
> So your patch isn't fixing the bug at all.
> 
> I'm going to apply the original patch, because that one will
> actually fix the problem and was actually tested on a system
> that saw the problem.

I suspect you missed part of Stephen patch :

(maybe some mailer problem...)

--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h	2007-04-17
13:26:48.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
2007-04-17 13:30:29.000000000 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
  {
  	unsigned char	prio[2];
  	unsigned char	addr[6];
-};
+} __attribute__((aligned(8)));

  struct mac_addr
  {

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html