From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752970AbbEAJTl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 1 May 2015 05:19:41 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:48565 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751145AbbEAJTj (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 1 May 2015 05:19:39 -0400
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 11:19:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        richard@nod.at, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bobby.prani@gmail.com,
        vdavydov@parallels.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix a misaligned load inside ptrace_attach()
Message-ID: <20150501091921.GA5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1430453997-32459-1-git-send-email-palmer@dabbelt.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1430453997-32459-1-git-send-email-palmer@dabbelt.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 09:19:54PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> I ran across what I believe is a bug in some asm-generic code while
> working on the RISC-V Linux port.  Essentially the problem is that
> wait_on_bit() takes a void *, but then perfroms long-aligned
> operation.  As far as I can tell, this bug could manifest on any other
> architecture that doesn't support misaligned operations and uses this
> particular asm-generic implementation.
> 
> The patch set is split into three parts:
> 
> * #1 fixes the bug by making task_struct.jobctl an unsigned long,
>    which ensures wait_on_bit() always ends up with a long-aligned
>    argument.
> 
> * #2 changes the prototype of wait_on_bit() and friends to take a
>    "unsigned long *" instead of a "void *", with the intent of
>    ensuring these problems don't happen again.
> 
> * #3 is a bit more intrusive: it goes and changes all uses of
>    task_struct.jobctl from int to long.
> 
> I'm not sure if #3 has gone too far, but I think #1 and #2 are sane.
> The cost is making task_struct larger on machines where
> sizeof(long)>sizeof(int), but since it's so big already this isn't too
> much cost.  I thought about making test_bit() perform byte-aligned
> accesses to avoid this cost, but since there are very similar looking
> atomic functions I thought that would be too odd.

Fair enough. Thanks!