netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h: Pack struct xfrm_userpolicy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52CF2BA7.9080408@cogentembedded.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:07:19 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
CC:	steffen.klassert@...unet.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, dev@...ts.strongswan.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h: Pack struct xfrm_userpolicy_info

On 01/10/2014 01:58 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

>>>> Otherwise 64bits kernel has sizeof(struct xfrm_userpolicy_info) 168 bytes,
>>>> while 32bits compiled iproute2 see the same structure as 164 bytes, which
>>>> leading deficit xfrm policy, in turn broken IPsec connectivity.

>>>> Fix this by packing the structure.

>>>     This will force byte-by-byte access to all members on some arches like
>>> ARM...

>>>> Signed-off-by: Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h |    2 +-
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>>>> index a8cd6a4..470bfae 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>>>> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ struct xfrm_userpolicy_info {
>>>>       /* Automatically expand selector to include matching ICMP payloads. */
>>>>   #define XFRM_POLICY_ICMP    2
>>>>       __u8                share;
>>>> -};
>>>> +} __attribute__((packed));

>>>     Please use the __packed macro instead. I guess you haven't run
>>> checkpatch.pl?

>> Lucky me, I run checkpatch every time before sending patch out.

>     Ah, this time it didn't have the *struct* start in the context, so that's
> why there was no complaint (probably). Usually, it suggests using __packed...

    Ah, no. Looking at the script, it just doesn't WARN about this in the 
files under include/uapi/. Probably the macro is undefined in this context.

WBR, Sergei

--
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