On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 23:33 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 21:33 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > This allows uswsusp built for i386 to run on an x86_64 kernel (tested
> > > with Debian package version 1.0+20110509-2).
> >
> > Now I wonder whether all this code was necessary.
> >
> > [...]
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > > +
> > > +struct compat_resume_swap_area {
> > > + compat_loff_t offset;
> > > + u32 dev;
> > > +} __packed;
> > [...]
> >
> > Is there actually any case where this doesn't have compatible layout
> > with struct resume_swap_area? It may have lower alignment, but
> > misalignment is dealt with automatically when copying in/out of
> > userland.
>
> Quite frankly, I'm not 100% sure.
If it wasn't for the '__packed' in the declaration of struct
resume_swap_area, there would be 4 trailing bytes of padding on 64-bit
architectures and none on most 32-bit architectures. But __packed
should inhibit that padding.
I was apparently mistaken about put_user(); that would need to be
changed to put_user_unaligned() if we want to handle compat_loff_t
without a wrapper.
> > If the structure size was variable then the ioctl number would be as
> > well, and commit cf007e3526a785a95a738d5a8fba44f1f4fe33e0 is supposed to
> > have removed the last ioctls that had that problem.
> >
> > So maybe the compat function can be as simple as:
> >
> > static long
> > snapshot_compat_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long
> > arg)
> > {
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(loff_t) != sizeof(compat_loff_t));
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct resume_swap_area) !=
> > sizeof(struct compat_resume_swap_area));
> >
>
> Well, I'd prefer to fail the ioctl in the above situations instead of crashing
> the kernel.
This is a compile-time check...
> > switch (cmd) {
> > case SNAPSHOT_SET_SWAP_AREA:
> > case SNAPSHOT_GET_IMAGE_SIZE:
> > case SNAPSHOT_CREATE_IMAGE:
> > case SNAPSHOT_AVAIL_SWAP_SIZE:
> > case SNAPSHOT_ALLOC_SWAP_PAGE:
> > return snapshot_ioctl(file, cmd,
> > (unsigned long) compat_ptr(arg));
> >
> > default:
> > return snapshot_ioctl(file, cmd, arg);
> > }
> > }
>
> Does it acutally work?
I haven't tested, but in any case testing on x86 wouldn't prove that
this works for any other 32/64-bit architecture pair.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
