On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 04:29:54PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 12/10, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +struct ptrace_syscall_info {
> > > > +       __u8 op;        /* PTRACE_SYSCALL_INFO_* */
> > > > +       __u8 __pad0[3];
> > > > +       __u32 arch;
> > > > +       __u64 instruction_pointer;
> > > > +       __u64 stack_pointer;
> > > > +       __u64 frame_pointer;
> > > > +       union {
> > > > +               struct {
> > > > +                       __u64 nr;
> > > > +                       __u64 args[6];
> > > > +               } entry;
> > > > +               struct {
> > > > +                       __s64 rval;
> > > > +                       __u8 is_error;
> > > > +                       __u8 __pad1[7];
> > > > +               } exit;
> > > > +               struct {
> > > > +                       __u64 nr;
> > > > +                       __u64 args[6];
> > > > +                       __u32 ret_data;
> > > > +                       __u8 __pad2[4];
> > > > +               } seccomp;
> > > > +       };
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > Could you explain why ptrace_syscall_info needs __pad{0,1,2} ? I simply 
> > > can't
> > > understand why...
> >
> > I suppose the idea behind the use of these pads was to make the structure
> > arch-independent.
> 
> Still can't understand... are you saying that without (say) __pad2[4]
> sizeof(ptrace_syscall_info) or offsetofend(ptrace_syscall_info, seccomp)
> will depend on arch? Or what? I am just curious.

Yes, without padding these sizes will depend on architecture:

$ cat t.c
#include <linux/types.h>
int main() {
        struct s {
                __u64 nr;
                __u64 args[6];
                __u32 ret_data;
        };
        return sizeof(struct s);
}

$ gcc -m64 -Wall -O2 t.c && ./a.out; echo $?
64
$ gcc -m32 -Wall -O2 t.c && ./a.out; echo $?
60

This happens because __u64 has 32-bit alignment on some 32-bit
architectures like x86.

There is also m68k where __u32 has 16-bit alignment.

> > I don't think we really need to keep it exactly the same on all
> > architectures - the only practical requirement is to avoid any compat
> > issues, but I don't mind keeping the structure arch-independent.
> 
> OK, but may be you can add a short comment to explain these pads.

Alternatively, we could use __attribute__((aligned(N))), e.g.

struct ptrace_syscall_info {
        __u8 op;        /* PTRACE_SYSCALL_INFO_* */
        __u32 arch __attribute__((aligned(4)));
        __u64 instruction_pointer;
        __u64 stack_pointer;
        union {
                struct {
                        __u64 nr __attribute__((aligned(8)));
                        __u64 args[6];
                } entry;
                struct {
                        __s64 rval __attribute__((aligned(8)));
                        __u8 is_error;
                } exit;
                struct {
                        __u64 nr __attribute__((aligned(8)));
                        __u64 args[6];
                        __u32 ret_data;
                } seccomp;
        };
};

Do you prefer __attribute__((aligned(N))) to padding?


-- 
ldv

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to