[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0910081454v51455ee0p30ad6715b5ee31c0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 23:54:02 +0200
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix struct sock bitfield annotation
2009/10/8 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> Since commit a98b65a3 (net: annotate struct sock bitfield), we lost 8 bytes
> in struct sock on 64bits arches because of kmemcheck_bitfield_end(flags) misplacement.
>
>
> struct good {
> int begin_flags[0];
> unsigned char a : 8;
> unsigned char b;
> unsigned short c;
> int end_flags[0];
> int sk_rcvbuf;
> void *ptr;
> };
> struct bad {
> int begin_flags[0];
> unsigned char a : 8;
> int end_flags[0];
> unsigned char b;
> unsigned short c;
> int sk_rcvbuf;
> void *ptr;
> };
> sizeof(struct good) = 16, sizeof(struct bad) = 24
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> ---
> include/net/sock.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
> index 1621935..ecfb831 100644
> --- a/include/net/sock.h
> +++ b/include/net/sock.h
> @@ -229,9 +229,9 @@ struct sock {
> unsigned char sk_shutdown : 2,
> sk_no_check : 2,
> sk_userlocks : 4;
> - kmemcheck_bitfield_end(flags);
> unsigned char sk_protocol;
> unsigned short sk_type;
> + kmemcheck_bitfield_end(flags);
> int sk_rcvbuf;
> socket_lock_t sk_lock;
> /*
>
Hm, no, this looks wrong to me, because sk_protocol and sk_type
_aren't_ in fact part of the bitfield.
We don't want to affect the kernel _at all_ when CONFIG_KMEMCHECK=n,
so I guess we should make the kmemcheck_bitfield_{begin|end}() macros
empty instead for that case? (And for kmemcheck kernels, we don't
really care about the lost 8 bytes anyway.)
Vegard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists