public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 2/9] lib: Add a canary for guarded buffers
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:47:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190802094708.GA27727@rei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1801920982.4081964.1564677172725.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>

Hi!
> > I'm aware of that. My reasoning here is that:
> > 
> > * The end of the page is aligned by definition to 2^page_order
> > 
> > * Any primitive types such as integer, etc. are hence aligned
> > 
> > * Structures are padded so that the total size is multiple of
> >   the largest alignment required (because otherwise arrays of
> >   structures would end up causing unaligned access as well).
> > 
> > That leaves out things such as buffers for direct I/O, the only way to
> > allocate aligned buffers there is to make the size to be multiple of
> > the block size.
> 
> I don't have concrete example at hand, but I foggily recall
> s390 issue from couple years back, where it didn't like odd addresses.
> Can't recall if it was data or code pointer.

Data should be fine as far as they are aligned accordingly to the type sizes.

I.e. one byte acces is fine on odd addresses, otherwise most of the
functions in string.h wouldn't work.

For shorts i.e. two byte integers odd addresses are slower on x86 and
x86_64 however does not work at all on many architectures. I remember
that 32bit arm used to have in-kernel emulation that mostly did the
right job but sometimes you got wrong results, so unaligned accesses are
better to be avoided.

The question is if kernel expects some alignment for buffers for things
such as read()/write() etc. I doubt so, since that would still break
things like write(fd, "aabbcc" + 1, 3) which I would expect is still
valid code.

Or do you have anything else in mind that may break?

> Could we apply/enforce some minimum alignment, similar to what glibc
> does for malloc?

That would be against the purpose of this patchset, i.e. catching
off-by-one bugs, since the page boundary would be a few bytes after the
end of the buffer in some cases. Well I guess that most of the
allocations would be as a matter of fact aligned and even these that are
not could be easily fixed by choosing buffers that are multiples of
four.

I would be fine with aligning the buffers for architectures that turn
out to be problematic if we find some. However I would like to avoid to
"just in case" modifications.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-02  9:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-01  9:26 [LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/9] Introduce guarded buffers Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01  9:26 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 1/9] lib: Add support for " Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01 10:39   ` Jan Stancek
2019-08-01 11:45     ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-02 14:03       ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-02 13:57     ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-02 13:59       ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-02 14:23         ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-02 14:36         ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-02 14:50           ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-02 14:20   ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-03 12:55   ` Li Wang
2019-08-06  7:36     ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-06  9:03   ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-08  9:06     ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-08  9:13       ` Li Wang
2019-08-08 15:41       ` Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-01  9:26 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 2/9] lib: Add a canary " Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01 10:43   ` Jan Stancek
2019-08-01 11:54     ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01 16:32       ` Jan Stancek
2019-08-02  9:47         ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2019-08-02 10:54           ` Jan Stancek
2019-08-03 13:02   ` Li Wang
2019-08-08  9:27     ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01  9:26 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 3/9] syscalls/preadv01: Make use of " Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01  9:26 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 4/9] syscalls/accept4_01: " Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01  9:26 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 5/9] syscalls/add_key04: " Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01  9:26 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 6/9] syscalls/adjtimex: " Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01  9:26 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 7/9] syscalls/clock_getres01: " Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01  9:26 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 8/9] syscalls/clock_settime01: " Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-01  9:26 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH 9/9] syscalls/sendmmsg01: " Cyril Hrubis
2019-08-06  9:47 ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 0/4] eBPF tests using guarded buffers API Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-06  9:47   ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/4] BPF: Essential headers for map creation Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-06  9:47   ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 2/4] BPF: Sanity check creating and updating maps Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-06  9:47   ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 3/4] BPF: Essential headers for a basic program Richard Palethorpe
2019-08-06  9:47   ` [LTP] [PATCH v3 4/4] BPF: Sanity check creating a program Richard Palethorpe

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=20190802094708.GA27727@rei \
    --to=chrubis@suse.cz \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox