Messages in this thread | | | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Date | Thu, 12 Oct 2023 21:23:57 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] perf intel-pt: pkt-decoder: Fix alignment issues |
| |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 5:27 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote: > > On 11/10/23 09:50, Ian Rogers wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:56 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 8:31 AM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 10:29 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:24 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:06 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 5/10/23 18:48, Ian Rogers wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 3:19 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The byte aligned buffer is cast to large types and dereferenced > >>>>>>>> causing misaligned pointer warnings from undefined behavior sanitizer. > >>>>>>>> Fix the alignment issues with memcpy which may require the > >>>>>>>> introduction of temporaries. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is a relatively small change that fixes building with > >>>>>>> -fsanitize=alignment -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error. Adrian, as > >>>>>>> this is Intel-PT could you take a look? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks! This has been down my list of things to do for ages, > >>>>>> but using get_unaligned_le16() etc seems nicer. I sent a patch > >>>>>> set for that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks Adrian! Your patch set looks good and I think after Arnaldo's > >>>>> comment is addressed we should go with it. > >>>> > >>>> I think it can be done as a later step as long as the interface is the > >>>> same. Can I add your Ack's to the Adrian's patchset? > >>> > >>> I think addressing Arnaldo's comment: > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZR8QnasisGEsaaDR@kernel.org/ > >>> will need some changes to the patch series, and so I was waiting to > >>> see the outcome of that. > >> > >> It seems it's done without further changes. Can I get your Ack's now? > > > > With the unaligned.h patch on its own, I think patch 1 of 5 needs > > dropping. For the rest I'm happy to acked-by. > > The new patch is on top of the others, so patch 1 is still needed.
I think I can squash it to the patch 1 if needed.
Thanks, Namhyung
| |