netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] skb: Define NET_IP_ALIGN based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:16:02 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...ts.codethink.co.uk,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] skb: Define NET_IP_ALIGN based on
 CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:43:59PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> (+ Arnd, Russell, Catalin, Will)
> 
> On 4 October 2018 at 19:36, Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:
> > NET_IP_ALIGN is supposed to be defined as 0 if DMA writes to an
> > unaligned buffer would be more expensive than CPU access to unaligned
> > header fields, and otherwise defined as 2.
> >
> > Currently only ppc64 and x86 configurations define it to be 0.
> > However several other architectures (conditionally) define
> > CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, which seems to imply that
> > NET_IP_ALIGN should be 0.
> >
> > Remove the overriding definitions for ppc64 and x86 and define
> > NET_IP_ALIGN solely based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
> 
> While this makes sense for arm64, I don't think it is appropriate for
> ARM per se.

Agreed that this makes sense for arm64, and I'd be happy to take a patch
defining it as 0 there.

Will