netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Fix struct sock bitfield annotation

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: <4ACE8CEC.3020905@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:07:56 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...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

Vegard Nossum a écrit :
> Hm, no, this looks wrong to me, because sk_protocol and sk_type
> _aren't_ in fact part of the bitfield.

What looks wrong to me is the original commit :)

> 
> 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.)

Point is we should not lose 8 bytes with kmemcheck on or off.
I believe kmemcheck macros are fine as they are.

When we have a structure with

        unsigned char           sk_shutdown : 2,
                                sk_no_check : 2,
                                sk_userlocks : 4;
        unsigned char           sk_protocol;
        unsigned short          sk_type;

Its pretty clear its *logically* a bitfield aggregation, or if you prefer :

        unsigned int            sk_shutdown : 2,
                                sk_no_check : 2,
                                sk_userlocks : 4,
                                sk_protocol : 8,
                                sk_type : 16;

Only difference is that in the second form, you cannot use
offsetof(struct sock, sk_type)

I am currently writing a tool to re-organize 'struct sock' fields,
for net-next-2.6 using offsetof() macro, this is how I spot the problem.

Thanks
--
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