alignment faults in 3.6

Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] writes:

On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 10:45 +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:

quoted

"David Laight" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: netdev-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of M?ns Rullg?rd
Sent: 11 October 2012 03:27
To: Jon Masters
Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; netdev at vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: alignment faults in 3.6

Jon Masters [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hi everyone,

On 10/05/2012 10:33 AM, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On 10/05/2012 09:05 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:24:44AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On 10/05/2012 03:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

Does it matter?  I'm just relaying the argument against adding __packed
which was used before we were forced (by the networking folk) to implement
the alignment fault handler.

It doesn't really matter what will be accepted or not as adding __packed
to struct iphdr doesn't fix the problem anyway. 

...

quoted

There are exactly two possible solutions:

1. Change the networking code so those structs are always aligned.  This
   might not be (easily) possible.
2. Mark the structs __packed and fix any typecasts like the ones seen in
   this thread.  This will have an adverse effect in cases where the
   structs are in fact aligned.

Both solutions lie squarely in the networking code.  It's time to
involve that list, or we'll never get anywhere.

It might be enough to use __attribute__((aligned(2))) on some structure
members (actually does 'ldm' need 8 byte alignment?? - in which case
aligned(4) is enough).

The aligned attribute can only increase alignment.

I have no idea what is the problem, 

-ENOTENOUGHCONTEXT

The thread starts here:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=134939228120020

Summary: a pointer to "struct iphdr" is not 4-byte aligned as required
by the ARM ABI rules, and this causes traps to the unaligned access
fault handler.  A recent change makes the kernel print "scheduling while
atomic" warnings on some of these traps, which may or may not be
benign.  Either way, this is bad for performance and should be fixed one
way or another.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com