All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Harshad Shirwadkar <harshads@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: fix portability problems caused by unaligned accesses
Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 12:14:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YJGdDHLcYuRajhsb@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD+ocby+01k9kx3-gEY_z+Ub9GFxi=AwxRS4Ax5-HUFDrVkT0w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:55:44AM -0700, harshad shirwadkar wrote:
> > However, wouldn't it be easier to just add __attribute__((packed)) to the
> > definition of struct journal_block_tag_t?
> While we know that journal_block_tag_t can be unaligned, our code
> should still ensure that we are reading this struct in an
> alignment-safe way (like Ted's patch does). IIUC, using
> __attribute__((packed)) might result in us keeping the door open for
> unaligned accesses in future. If someone tries to read 4 bytes
> starting at &journal_block_tag_t->t_flags, with attribute packed,
> UBSAN won't complain but this may still cause issues on some
> architectures.

I don't understand your concern here.  Accesses to a packed struct are assumed
to be unaligned -- that's why I suggested it.  The packed attribute is pretty
widely used to implement unaligned accesses in C (as an alternative to memcpy()
or explicit byte-by-byte accesses, both of which also work, though the latter
seems to run into an UBSAN bug in this case).

- Eric

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-04 19:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-04  3:10 [PATCH] e2fsck: fix portability problems caused by unaligned accesses Theodore Ts'o
2021-05-04  6:29 ` Andreas Dilger
2021-05-04  9:40   ` harshad shirwadkar
2021-05-04 13:49     ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-05-04 16:46       ` Eric Biggers
2021-05-04 17:55         ` harshad shirwadkar
2021-05-04 19:14           ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2021-05-04 19:53             ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-05-04 20:14               ` harshad shirwadkar
2021-05-04 20:45                 ` Eric Biggers
2021-05-04 21:10                   ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-05-04 21:30                     ` Eric Biggers
2021-05-07  6:45                       ` Eric Biggers
2021-05-07 15:56                         ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-05-07 16:22                           ` harshad shirwadkar
2021-05-04 20:35               ` Eric Biggers
2021-05-04 15:18   ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-05-06 18:30 ` [PATCH -v2] " Theodore Ts'o
2021-05-06 23:30   ` harshad shirwadkar
2021-05-07  1:50     ` Theodore Ts'o

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YJGdDHLcYuRajhsb@gmail.com \
    --to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=adilger@dilger.ca \
    --cc=harshads@google.com \
    --cc=harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.