archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frank Rowand <>
To: Rob Herring <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.12-rc5
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:04:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 3/29/21 1:41 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> n Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 1:05 PM Linus Torvalds
> <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:07 PM Guenter Roeck <> wrote:
>>> This is not really a new problem. I enabled devicetree unit tests
>>> in the openrisc kernel and was rewarded with a crash.
>>> has all the glorious details.
>> Hmm.
>> I'm not sure I love that patch.
>> I don't think the patch is _wrong_ per se, but if that "require 8 byte
>> alignment" is a problem, then this seems to be papering over the issue
>> rather than fixing it.
>> So your patch protects from a NULL pointer dereference, but the
>> underlying issue seems to be a regression, and the fix sounds like the
>> kernel shouldn't be so strict about alignment requirements.
> In the interest of the DT unittests not panicking and halting boot, I
> think we should handle NULL pointer.


>> I guess we could make ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN be at least 8 (perhaps only
>> if the allocations is >= 8) but honestly, I don't think libfdt merits
>> making such a big change. Small allocations are actually not uncommon
>> in the kernel, and on 32-bit architectures I think 4-byte allocations
>> are normal.
>> So I'd be inclined to just remove the new
>>         /* The device tree must be at an 8-byte aligned address */
>>         if ((uintptr_t)fdt & 7)
>>                 return -FDT_ERR_ALIGNMENT;
>> check in scripts/dtc/libfdt/fdt.c which I assume is the source of the
>> problem. Rob?
> That is the source, but I'd rather not remove it as we try to avoid
> any modifications from upstream. And we've found a couple of cases of
> not following documented alignment requirements.

Agreed to not remove.  We can be properly aligned without changing

>> Your patch to then avoid the NULL pointer dereference seems to be then
>> an additional safety, but not fixing the actual regression.
> I think the right fix is not using kmemdup which copies the unittest dtb.A

This is not the only place a kmemdup() is used by overlays.

I'll create a patch this week to fix all of the kmemdup() locations and add
the null pointer check.


> Rob

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-29 19:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-28 23:05 Linux 5.12-rc5 Linus Torvalds
2021-03-29  2:07 ` Guenter Roeck
2021-03-29 18:05   ` Linus Torvalds
2021-03-29 18:41     ` Rob Herring
2021-03-29 19:04       ` Frank Rowand [this message]
2021-03-29 19:42     ` Guenter Roeck

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).