[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1471984445.3746.129.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:34:05 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: ben@...adent.org.uk, luis.henriques@...onical.com,
avijitnsec@...eaurora.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2014-9900 fix is not upstream
On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 21:09 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:24:06AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > On some versions and architectures. Can you guarantee that you will
> > > notice when an exception appears?
> > Again, show me the assembler output exhibiting the lack of
> > initialization, for this specific structure and situation.
> >
> > That's all that I'm asking.
> ... and then we can file a bug report against the sodding compiler. Note
> that
> struct ethtool_wolinfo {
> __u32 cmd;
> __u32 supported;
> __u32 wolopts;
> __u8 sopass[SOPASS_MAX]; // 6, actually
> };
> is not going to *have* padding. Not on anything even remotely sane.
> If array of 6 char as member of a struct requires 64bit alignment on some
> architecture, I would really like some of what the designers of that ABI
> must have been smoking.
try this on x86-64
$ pahole -C ethtool_wolinfo vmlinux
struct ethtool_wolinfo {
__u32 cmd; /* 0 4 */
__u32 supported; /* 4 4 */
__u32 wolopts; /* 8 4 */
__u8 sopass[6]; /* 12 6 */
/* size: 20, cachelines: 1, members: 4 */
/* padding: 2 */
/* last cacheline: 20 bytes */
};
Powered by blists - more mailing lists