RE: [PATCH 5/5] compat: consolidate the compat_flock{,64} definition
From: David Laight <hidden>
Date: 2021-04-12 13:12:02
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-mips, linux-s390, lkml, sparclinux
From: Arnd Bergmann
Sent: 12 April 2021 12:26 On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:54 PM David Laight [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: David Laight > Sent: 12 April 2021 10:37 ...quoted
I'm guessing that compat_pid_t is 16 bits? So the native 32bit version has an unnamed 2 byte structure pad. The 'packed' removes this pad from the compat structure. AFAICT (apart from mips) the __ARCH_COMPAT_FLOCK_PAD is just adding an explicit pad for the implicit pad the compiler would generate because compat_pid_t is 16 bits.I've just looked at the header. compat_pid_t is 32 bits. So Linux must have gained 32bit pids at some earlier time. (Historically Unix pids were 16 bit - even on 32bit systems.) Which makes the explicit pad in 'sparc' rather 'interesting'.I saw it was there since the sparc kernel support got merged in linux-1.3, possibly copied from an older sunos version.
Which had a 16bit pid when I used it. So this is a bug in the sparc merge! The explicit 'short' pad could be removed from the 64bit variant because there are always 4 bytes of pad after l_pid. But it does extend the application structure on 32bit sparc so must remain in the uapi header. It doesn't need to be in the 'compat' definition.
quoted
oh - compat_loff_t is only used in a couple of other places. neither care in any way about the alignment. (Provided get_user() doesn't fault on a 8n+4 aligned address.)Ah right, I also see that after this series it's only used in to other places: compat_resume_swap_area, which could also lose the __packed annotation,
That structure just defines 0 and 8, the structure size doesn't matter and the offsets are 'passed to' get_user() so byte accesses aren't performed.
and in the declaration of compat_sys_sendfile64, where it makes no difference.
Which should probably use get_user() rather than copy_from_user(). Although some architectures may need fallback code for misaligned get_user() ? Or is there a general 'cop out' that structures passed to the kernel are required to be correctly aligned. They should be aligned unless the kernel is 'playing games' like reading 'struct pollfd' as a 64bit item. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)