From: "Andres Lagar-Cavilla" <andres@lagarcavilla.org>
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
Cc: ian.jackson@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com
Subject: memop struct packing, 32/64 bits
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:30:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e8528eebbd67c74ea6898c39f572c846.squirrel@webmail.lagarcavilla.org> (raw)
Hi,
I had the following painful experience. I declared
struct xen_mem_event_op {
uint8_t op; /* XENMEM_*_op_* */
domid_t domain;
uint64_t buffer;
uint64_t gfn; /* IN: gfn of page being operated on */
};
typedef struct xen_mem_event_op xen_mem_event_op_t;
to be passed as the argument of a memory op called form the toolstack. The
hypervisor is 64 bits and the toolstack is 32 bits. My toolstack code
simply:
xen_mem_event_op_t meo;
... set fields ...
return do_memory_op(xch, mode, &meo, sizeof(meo));
No joy because 32 bits was packing the struct differently than 64 bits.
Namely, both were adding a 1 byte pad between 'op' and 'domain', but when
compiled in 64 bits mode for the hypervisor, an additional 4 byte pad was
thrown between 'domain' and 'buffer'.
The first question is, what is the preferred way around this. Declare pads
inside the struct?
Exploring the include/public/memory.h declarations and toolstack code, I
see that no current declare includes __attribute__((aligned)) or
__attribute__((packed)), or explicit pads.
So how come things don't break more often for 32 bit toolstacks? pure
luck? Am I missing something?
Thanks!
Andres
next reply other threads:[~2012-01-19 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-19 20:30 Andres Lagar-Cavilla [this message]
2012-01-19 20:49 ` memop struct packing, 32/64 bits Keir Fraser
2012-01-19 20:57 ` Andres Lagar-Cavilla
2012-01-19 21:11 ` Ian Campbell
2012-01-19 21:21 ` Andres Lagar-Cavilla
2012-01-19 21:23 ` Andres Lagar-Cavilla
2012-01-19 21:56 ` Keir Fraser
2012-01-19 22:00 ` Keir Fraser
2012-01-19 22:04 ` Keir Fraser
2012-01-19 22:05 ` Andres Lagar-Cavilla
2012-01-22 20:37 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-01-22 20:43 ` Keir Fraser
2012-01-23 9:24 ` Jan Beulich
2012-01-23 15:02 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-01-19 20:49 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-01-19 21:07 ` Keir Fraser
2012-01-19 21:12 ` Ian Campbell
2012-01-19 21:56 ` Keir Fraser
2012-01-20 10:12 ` Jan Beulich
2012-01-20 10:32 ` Keir Fraser
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=e8528eebbd67c74ea6898c39f572c846.squirrel@webmail.lagarcavilla.org \
--to=andres@lagarcavilla.org \
--cc=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=ian.jackson@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).