netdev - Re: [PATCH net v4 01/12] net: core: limit nested device depth

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: <CAMArcTX7RLaqxYXMfKbC5Kw0JdXauwaxRQGxh=bZqqYafYAPLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Oct 2019 03:23:52 +0900
From:   Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        sd@...asysnail.net, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, manishc@...vell.com, rahulv@...vell.com,
        kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        sashal@...nel.org, hare@...e.de, varun@...lsio.com,
        ubraun@...ux.ibm.com, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
        Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>,
        Cody Schuffelen <schuffelen@...gle.com>, bjorn@...k.no
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 01/12] net: core: limit nested device depth

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 22:57, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>

Hi!

> (jumping out now, forgive me for being so brief)
>
> > If I understand correctly, you said about the alignment of
> > "lower_level" and "upper_level".
> > I thought this place is a fine position for variables as regards the
> > alignment and I didn't try to put each variable in different places.
> >
> > If I misunderstood your mention, please let me know.
>
> Not sure what you mean, alignment doesn't matter for them (they're u8).
>
> I was thinking of the packing for the overall struct, we have:
>
>         unsigned int            max_mtu;
>         unsigned short          type;
>         unsigned short          hard_header_len;
>         unsigned char           min_header_len;
>
> +       unsigned char           upper_level, lower_level;
>
>         unsigned short          needed_headroom;
>         unsigned short          needed_tailroom;
>
>
> Previously, there was a one byte hole at that spot due to a single
> "unsigned char" (after something aligned at least 4 bytes) followed by
> "unsigned short" - now you push that out a bit.
>
> If you place the variables a bit lower, below "name_assign_type", you
> probably fill a hole instead.
>
> Check out the 'pahole' tool.
>

Thank you for the detailed explanation.
I tested the pahole and found holes.

$ pahole ./vmlinux.o -C net_device
        unsigned char              addr_assign_type;     /*   598     1 */
        unsigned char              addr_len;             /*   599     1 */
        short unsigned int         neigh_priv_len;       /*   600     2 */
        short unsigned int         dev_id;               /*   602     2 */
        short unsigned int         dev_port;             /*   604     2 */

        /* XXX 2 bytes hole, try to pack */

I will place the variables here.

> johannes
>

Thank you so much!
Taehee