lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/12] signal: Redefine signinfo so 64bit fields are possible
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 09:03PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 8:42 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> > Marco Elver <elver@google.com> writes:
> > > On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 23:04, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> > >> "Eric W. Beiderman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> writes:
> > >> > From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> > >> >
> > >> > The si_perf code really wants to add a u64 field. This change enables
> > >> > that by reorganizing the definition of siginfo_t, so that a 64bit
> > >> > field can be added without increasing the alignment of other fields.
> > >
> > > If you can, it'd be good to have an explanation for this, because it's
> > > not at all obvious -- some future archeologist will wonder how we ever
> > > came up with this definition of siginfo...
> > >
> > > (I see the trick here is that before the union would have changed
> > > alignment, introducing padding after the 3 ints -- but now because the
> > > 3 ints are inside the union the union's padding no longer adds padding
> > > for these ints. Perhaps you can explain it better than I can. Also
> > > see below.)
> >
> > Yes. The big idea is adding a 64bit field into the second union
> > in the _sigfault case will increase the alignment of that second
> > union to 64bit.
> >
> > In the 64bit case the alignment is already 64bit so it is not an
> > issue.
> >
> > In the 32bit case there are 3 ints followed by a pointer. When the
> > 64bit member is added the alignment of _segfault becomes 64bit. That
> > 64bit alignment after 3 ints changes the location of the 32bit pointer.
> >
> > By moving the 3 preceding ints into _segfault that does not happen.
> >
> >
> >
> > There remains one very subtle issue that I think isn't a problem
> > but I would appreciate someone else double checking me.
> >
> >
> > The old definition of siginfo_t on 32bit almost certainly had 32bit
> > alignment. With the addition of a 64bit member siginfo_t gains 64bit
> > alignment. This difference only matters if the 64bit field is accessed.
> > Accessing a 64bit field with 32bit alignment will cause unaligned access
> > exceptions on some (most?) architectures.
> >
> > For the 64bit field to be accessed the code needs to be recompiled with
> > the new headers. Which implies that when everything is recompiled
> > siginfo_t will become 64bit aligned.
> >
> >
> > So the change should be safe unless someone is casting something with
> > 32bit alignment into siginfo_t.
>
> How about if someone has a field of type siginfo_t as an element of a
> struct? For example:
>
> struct foo {
> int x;
> siginfo_t y;
> };
>
> With this change wouldn't the y field move from offset 4 to offset 8?

This is a problem if such a struct is part of the ABI -- in the kernel I
found these that might be problematic:

| arch/csky/kernel/signal.c:struct rt_sigframe {
| arch/csky/kernel/signal.c- /*
| arch/csky/kernel/signal.c- * pad[3] is compatible with the same struct defined in
| arch/csky/kernel/signal.c- * gcc/libgcc/config/csky/linux-unwind.h
| arch/csky/kernel/signal.c- */
| arch/csky/kernel/signal.c- int pad[3];
| arch/csky/kernel/signal.c- struct siginfo info;
| arch/csky/kernel/signal.c- struct ucontext uc;
| arch/csky/kernel/signal.c-};
| [...]
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h-#define SIGRETURN_TRAMP 4
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h-#define SIGRESTARTBLOCK_TRAMP 5
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h-#define TRAMP_SIZE (SIGRETURN_TRAMP + SIGRESTARTBLOCK_TRAMP)
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h-
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h:struct rt_sigframe {
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h- /* XXX: Must match trampoline size in arch/parisc/kernel/signal.c
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h- Secondary to that it must protect the ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h- trampoline we left on the stack (we were bad and didn't
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h- change sp so we could run really fast.) */
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h- unsigned int tramp[TRAMP_SIZE];
| arch/parisc/include/asm/rt_sigframe.h- struct siginfo info;
| [..]
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h-#define COMPAT_SIGRETURN_TRAMP 4
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h-#define COMPAT_SIGRESTARTBLOCK_TRAMP 5
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h-#define COMPAT_TRAMP_SIZE (COMPAT_SIGRETURN_TRAMP + \
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h- COMPAT_SIGRESTARTBLOCK_TRAMP)
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h-
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h:struct compat_rt_sigframe {
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h- /* XXX: Must match trampoline size in arch/parisc/kernel/signal.c
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h- Secondary to that it must protect the ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h- trampoline we left on the stack (we were bad and didn't
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h- change sp so we could run really fast.) */
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h- compat_uint_t tramp[COMPAT_TRAMP_SIZE];
| arch/parisc/kernel/signal32.h- compat_siginfo_t info;

Adding these static asserts to parisc shows the problem:

| diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/signal.c b/arch/parisc/kernel/signal.c
| index fb1e94a3982b..0be582fb81be 100644
| --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/signal.c
| +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/signal.c
| @@ -610,3 +610,6 @@ void do_notify_resume(struct pt_regs *regs, long in_syscall)
| if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME))
| tracehook_notify_resume(regs);
| }
| +
| +static_assert(sizeof(unsigned long) == 4); // 32 bit build
| +static_assert(offsetof(struct rt_sigframe, info) == 9 * 4);

This passes without the siginfo rework in this patch. With it:

| ./include/linux/build_bug.h:78:41: error: static assertion failed: "offsetof(struct rt_sigframe, info) == 9 * 4"

As sad as it is, I don't think we can have our cake and eat it, too. :-(

Unless you see why this is fine, I think we need to drop this patch and
go back to the simpler version you had.

Thanks,
-- Marco

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-05-04 11:53    [W:0.061 / U:0.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site