Date:	Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:07:26 +0100
From:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
CC:	bhutchings@...arflare.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, David.Laight@...LAB.COM
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] netlink: align attributes on 64-bits

Le 18/12/2012 18:08, Thomas Graf a écrit :
> On 12/18/12 at 05:23pm, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> Le 18/12/2012 13:57, Thomas Graf a écrit :
>>> -static inline int nla_padlen(int payload)
>>> -{
>>> -	return nla_total_size(payload) - nla_attr_size(payload);
>>> +	if (!IS_ALIGNED(len, NLA_ATTR_ALIGN))
>>> +		len = ALIGN(len + NLA_HDRLEN, NLA_ATTR_ALIGN);
>> Two comments:
>> 1/ should it be ALIGN(len, NLA_ATTR_ALIGN)? If we want to add a __u64:
>>     => nla_attr_size(sizeof(__u64)) = 12
>>     => NLA_ALIGN(nla_attr_size(sizeof(__u64))) => 12 (= len)
>>     => ALIGN(len + NLA_HDRLEN, NLA_ATTR_ALIGN) = 0 but it should be 4
>
> We can't add 1-3 bytes of padding, therefore we need to add
> NLA_HDRLEN to len before aligning it to enforce a minimal
> padding. We can't hit it right now because 4 byte alignment
> of the previous attribute is a given but if we ever change
> the alignment it could become an issue and the above should
> be bullet proof.
>
> Your example would come out like this:
>    nla_attr_size(8) = 12
>    ALIGN(12 + 4, 8) = 16
Got it, right.

>
>> 2/ Suppose that the attribute is:
>>
>>    struct foo {
>>    	__u64 bar1;
>>    	__u32 bar2;
>>    }
>>    => sizeof(struct foo) = 12 (= payload)
>>    => nla_attr_size(payload) = 16
>>    => NLA_ALIGN(nla_attr_size(payload)) = 16 (= len)
>>    => IS_ALIGNED(len, NLA_ATTR_ALIGN) = true
>>    => extra room is not reserved
>>    But it's not guaranteed that bar1 is aligned on 8 bytes, only on 4 bytes.
>
> That's correct, that's why I have added the additional
> NLA_ATTR_ALIGN of room in nlmsg_new(). It will account
> for the one time padding that is needed before we add
> the very first attribute.
>
> If all attributes after that have a size aligned to 8
> bytes no padding is needed. Padding will only be needed
> again if a struct is missized in which case we reserve
> room with the above. Correct?
Seems good ;-)

>
>>> +	offset = (size_t) skb_tail_pointer(skb);
>>> +	if (!IS_ALIGNED(offset + NLA_HDRLEN, NLA_ATTR_ALIGN)) {
>> With the previous struct foo, this test may be true even if we don't
>> have reserved extra room. This test depends on previous attribute.
>> I think the exact size of the netlink message depends on the order
>> of attributes, not only on the attribute itself.
>> What about taking the assumption that the start will never be
>> aligned and always allocating extra room: ALIGN(NLA_ALIGNTO,
>> NLA_ATTR_ALIGN) (= 4)?
>
> See my explanation above. I think this works. The order does not
> matter, the sum of all padding required will always be the same.
I will do more test.

>
>>> +static bool nla_insufficient_space(struct sk_buff *skb, int attrlen)
>>> +{
>>> +	size_t needed = nla_pre_padlen(skb) + nla_total_size(attrlen);
>> If nla_total_size() was right, nla_pre_padlen(skb) should already be
>> included. Am I wrong?
>
> No, nla_pre_padlen() contains the number of bytes needed to align
> skb_tail_pointer() to an alignment of 8. If that is > 0 but the
> attribute to follow is already aligned.
>
> The tricky part here is that accounting for padding in
> nla_total_size() only works for the sum of all attributes.
> It does not account for the specific padding required for the
> previous attribute.
>
> Therefore the above check. The above could be changed to
> nla_attr_size() theoretically as we don't need space for the
> final padding eventually but we checked for space before so I
> kept it that way.
>
> I realize it's slightly confusign and needs better documentation
> and please double check my thinking :-)
Ok, you convince me ;-)
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists