lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: compat: autofs v5 packet size ambiguity - update
From
Date
Am Mittwoch, den 22.02.2012, 13:57 +0800 schrieb Ian Kent:
> On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 13:53 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 13:43 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 20:56 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Ahh ... forgot to set the file_operations structure member .. oops
> >
> > >
> > > +static int autofs4_root_dir_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > > +{
> > > + struct autofs_sb_info *sbi= autofs4_sbi(file->f_path.dentry->d_sb);
> > > + if (sbi->compat_daemon < 0)
> > > + sbi->compat_daemon = is_compat_task();
> > > + return dcache_dir_open(inode, file);
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
>
> Lets try that again.
>
> autofs: work around unhappy compat problem on x86-64
>
> From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
>
> When the autofs protocol version 5 packet type was added in commit
> 5c0a32fc2cd0 ("autofs4: add new packet type for v5 communications"), it
> obvously tried quite hard to be word-size agnostic, and uses explicitly
> sized fields that are all correctly aligned.
>
> However, with the final "char name[NAME_MAX+1]" array at the end, the
> actual size of the structure ends up being not very well defined:
> because the struct isn't marked 'packed', doing a "sizeof()" on it will
> align the size of the struct up to the biggest alignment of the members
> it has.
>
> And despite all the members being the same, the alignment of them is
> different: a "__u64" has 4-byte alignment on x86-32, but native 8-byte
> alignment on x86-64. And while 'NAME_MAX+1' ends up being a nice round
> number (256), the name[] array starts out a 4-byte aligned.
>
> End result: the "packed" size of the structure is 300 bytes: 4-byte, but
> not 8-byte aligned.
>
> As a result, despite all the fields being in the same place on all
> architectures, sizeof() will round up that size to 304 bytes on
> architectures that have 8-byte alignment for u64.
>
> Note that this is *not* a problem for 32-bit compat mode on POWER, since
> there __u64 is 8-byte aligned even in 32-bit mode. But on x86, 32-bit
> and 64-bit alignment is different for 64-bit entities, and as a result
> the structure that has exactly the same layout has different sizes.
>
> So on x86-64, but no other architecture, we will just subtract 4 from
> the size of the structure when running in a compat task. That way we
> will write the properly sized packet that user mode expects.
>
> Not pretty. Sadly, this very subtle, and unnecessary, size difference
> has been encoded in user space that wants to read packets of *exactly*
> the right size, and will refuse to touch anything else.
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Thomas Meyer <thomas@m3y3r.de>
> Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
> ---

works for me on top of 3.2.7.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-25 12:31    [W:0.609 / U:0.864 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site