netdev - Re: [PATCH] SIW: iWARP Protocol headers

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: <1286393504.26136.31.camel@lap75545.ornl.gov>
Date:	Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:31:44 -0400
From:	David Dillow <dave@...dillows.org>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:	Bernard Metzler <BMT@...ich.ibm.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma-owner@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SIW: iWARP Protocol headers

On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:37 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 02:22:55PM -0400, David Dillow wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 11:25 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 02:52:46PM +0200, Bernard Metzler wrote:
> > > It is actually a little more complicated than just this. I assume you
> > > are casting the structures over packet payloads? In this case you
> > > have to guarentee alignment (or used packed everywhere). Does iwarp
> > > have provisions for alignment? If so you can construct your bitfields
> > > using the alignment type, ie if iWarp guarantees 4 bytes then the
> > > biggest type you can use is u32 - then you can avoid using packed.
> > > 
> > > Mind you, I'm not sure how to guarentee alignment when you consider
> > > all the possible sources of unalignment in the stack: TCP, IP, L2 stack ?
> > 
> > You don't have to. The TCP stack, IIRC, requires the architecture to fix
> > up misaligned accesses, or at least it used to. It will try to keep
> > things aligned if possible -- see the comment above NET_IP_ALIGN in
> > include/linux/skbuff.h.
> 
> I was under the impression that this was just to align the IP
> header.

It is, and it assumes an ethernet header of 14 bytes. As you note, VLANs
and everything else can mess with that, which is why the TCP stack
requires the architecture to handle unaligned accesses. It's a bonus if
iWarp can guarantee an alignment WRT the IP or TCP header, but not
required.

> > The structures in Bernard's header have all fields naturally
> > aligned, so no need for the packed attribute and its baggage.
> 
> No, they arent:
> 
> > +struct iwarp_rdma_write {
> > +	struct iwarp_ctrl	ctrl;
> > +	__u32			sink_stag;
> > +	__u64			sink_to;
> > +} __attribute__((__packed__));
> 
> For instance has sink_to unaligned if the maximum aligment of the
> payload is only guarenteed to be 4. The proper thing to do in this
> case is probably __attribute__((__packed__, __aligned__(4))) if that
> works the way I think.. :)

struct iwarp_ctrl consists of 2 u16s, so sink_stag is aligned to 4 bytes
from the start of the struct iwarp_rdma_write, and sink_to is at 8 bytes
-- so they are naturally aligned with respect to the structure. The
compiler will not add padding, so no need for the packed attribute.

Note I'm not talking about alignment in memory -- that'll depend on
where the data starts, and as I mentioned, the stack doesn't make any
guarantees about that, relying on the architecture to fixup any
misaligned accesses.
--
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