[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Unaligned writes on the kexec path
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:54:09PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 29/11/11 11:35, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 29.11.11 at 11:49, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 29/11/11 05:51, Simon Horman wrote: > >>> Hi Keir, Hi Andrew, > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 08:42:16PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote: > >>>> On 28/11/2011 14:24, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> In c/s 7493bb48d89f, you change the internals of kexec_crash_save_info() > >>>> The patch is by Simon Horman, cc'ed, not me. > >> Right. Sorry. I should have remembered that basing "who wrote the > >> patch" on a simple hg log was not a safe bet. > > I don't think there's much room for improvement - all members of > > crash_xen_info_t are of "unsigned long" type, but ELF note handling > > will only ever guarantee 4-byte alignment. > > > > Jan > > > Depending on how flexible we want to be, we can either specify that the > name field should be 2n words long plus 1-4 bytes, which will cause it > to align to an odd number of 4 bytes, which will cause the desc field to > be aligned to 8 bytes when the type field in the note header is taken > into account. Then, the desc field should be constrained to be (2n+1) + > 1-4bytes which would cause it to have 8 byte alignment, and subsequently > 8 byte align the next note. > > Alternatively, we could artificially extend the name up to an odd 4 byte > alignment, and desc field up to 8 byte alignment with trailing \0's and > include this as part of their length fields. All names should be > processed as Null terminating strings (which wont suffer from having > extra Nulls at the end) and I have yet to see processing of a note which > doesn't take the buffer and cast it to a structure pointer. This also > wont suffer from from trailing data. > > Then again, this does sound like quite a lot of work for not a lot, and > there is no guarantee that we wont break some of the more special code > which works with elf files in 'special' ways. I believe that the scheme you suggest would work. But elf parsing does tend to be a bit special. So I lean towards not changing things. > (What really should have happened was for ELF64 to specify 64bit > alignment of things like this, but we live and learn) Agreed. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |