From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Linux 5.12-rc5 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:04:00 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <824f80dc-7936-4f7b-b298-1b2c2ad60716@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqKxLy3Gc8d1Q23AQaWTKLmc_a28tokZZ08rHnV2qU0iew@mail.gmail.com> On 3/29/21 1:41 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > n Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 1:05 PM Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:07 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: >>> >>> This is not really a new problem. I enabled devicetree unit tests >>> in the openrisc kernel and was rewarded with a crash. >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210327224116.69309-1-linux@roeck-us.net/ >>> 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. Agreed. > >> 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 kmemdup(). > >> 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. -Frank > > Rob >
next prev parent 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 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=824f80dc-7936-4f7b-b298-1b2c2ad60716@gmail.com \ --to=frowand.list@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \ --cc=robh@kernel.org \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ --subject='Re: Linux 5.12-rc5' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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).