Message-ID: <54DE730D.3090100@ezchip.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:56:29 -0500
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com>
CC: <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        <davem@davemloft.net>, <benh@kernel.crashing.org>, <deller@gmx.de>,
        <hpa@zytor.com>, Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <ralf@linux-mips.org>, <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
        "lizefan@huawei.com" <lizefan@huawei.com>, <paulus@samba.org>,
        <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "dingtianhong@huawei.com" <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compat: Fix endian issue in union sigval
References: <1423563011-12377-1-git-send-email-bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com> <20150210122718.GC32052@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54DB3B60.4050100@huawei.com> <20150211154054.GD9058@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54DDAF2B.2070707@huawei.com> <20150213104455.GA3508@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150213104455.GA3508@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2015 21:56:38.8609 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB4PR02MB0541
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3536
Lines: 76

On 2/13/2015 5:44 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:00:43PM +0800, Bamvor Jian Zhang wrote:
>> On 2015/2/11 23:40, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 07:22:08PM +0800, Bamvor Jian Zhang wrote:
>>>> On 2015/2/10 20:27, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:10:11AM +0000, Zhang Jian(Bamvor) wrote:
>> ...
>>> The native sigval_t is also a union but on 64-bit big endian, the
>>> sival_int overlaps with the most significant 32-bit of the sival_ptr.
>>> So reading sival_int would always be 0. When the compat siginfo is
>>> copied to user, arm64 reads the native sival_ptr (si_ptr) and converts
>>> it to the compat one, getting the correct 32-bit value. However, other
>>> architectures access sival_int (si_int) instead which breaks with your
>>> get_compat_sigevent() changes.
>
>> tile, s390:          arch/xxx/kernel/compat_signal.c
>
> tile seems to be bi-endian, though I couldn't see a Kconfig option, nor
> something defining __BIG_ENDIAN__ in headers or Makefile. I guess it's
> coming from the compiler directly.

Yes, we just pick up the compiler's __BIG_ENDIAN__ if specified.

> Anyway, on big endian tile, I we have
> the same issue as on big endian arm64.
>
> I think it's only tile that needs fixing for big endian, something like
> the arm64 patch below:
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal32.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal32.c
>> index e299de396e9b..32601939a3c8 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal32.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal32.c
>> @@ -154,8 +154,7 @@ int copy_siginfo_to_user32(compat_siginfo_t __user *to, const siginfo_t *from)
>>   	case __SI_TIMER:
>>   		 err |= __put_user(from->si_tid, &to->si_tid);
>>   		 err |= __put_user(from->si_overrun, &to->si_overrun);
>> -		 err |= __put_user((compat_uptr_t)(unsigned long)from->si_ptr,
>> -				   &to->si_ptr);
>> +		 err |= __put_user(from->si_int, &to->si_int);
>>   		break;
>>   	case __SI_POLL:
>>   		err |= __put_user(from->si_band, &to->si_band);
>> @@ -184,7 +183,7 @@ int copy_siginfo_to_user32(compat_siginfo_t __user *to, const siginfo_t *from)
>>   	case __SI_MESGQ: /* But this is */
>>   		err |= __put_user(from->si_pid, &to->si_pid);
>>   		err |= __put_user(from->si_uid, &to->si_uid);
>> -		err |= __put_user((compat_uptr_t)(unsigned long)from->si_ptr, &to->si_ptr);
>> +		err |= __put_user(from->si_int, &to->si_int);
>>   		break;
>>   	case __SI_SYS:
>>   		err |= __put_user((compat_uptr_t)(unsigned long)

I must be confused here, but I don't see that these do anything different.

If we are writing 32 bits to to->si_ptr or to->si_int, either way the high 32 bits
are irrelevant.  So whether we read it from from->si_ptr and massage the high bits,
or just read it from from->si_int as a straight-up 32-bit quantity, either way it
seems we should end up writing the same bits to userspace.

I would understand the argument if we were overlaying the si_ptr/si_int union
from a kernel-side siginfo_t where si_ptr and si_int are different sizes
onto userspace, but it doesn't seem we ever do that.

All that said, it certainly seems like the si_int version is simpler, so I don't have
a problem with switching to it, but I don't see how it fixes a problem.

-- 
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/