Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: fix uapi bpf_prog_info fields alignment

From: "Dmitry V. Levin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 18:08:35 +0300

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 07:16:55AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:07 AM Baruch Siach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > Merge commit 1c8c5a9d38f60 ("Merge
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next") undid the
> > fix from commit 36f9814a494 ("bpf: fix uapi hole for 32 bit compat
> > applications") by taking the gpl_compatible 1-bit field definition from
> > commit b85fab0e67b162 ("bpf: Add gpl_compatible flag to struct
> > bpf_prog_info") as is. That breaks architectures with 16-bit alignment
> > like m68k. Embed gpl_compatible into an anonymous union with 32-bit pad
> > member to restore alignment of following fields.
> >
> > Thanks to Dmitry V. Levin his analysis of this bug history.
> >
> > Cc: Jiri Olsa <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email-masked]>
> > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > Use anonymous union with pad to make it less likely to break again in
> > the future.
> > ---
> >  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       | 5 ++++-
> >  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 5 ++++-
> >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index a8b823c30b43..766eae02d7ae 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -3142,7 +3142,10 @@ struct bpf_prog_info {
> >         __aligned_u64 map_ids;
> >         char name[BPF_OBJ_NAME_LEN];
> >         __u32 ifindex;
> > -       __u32 gpl_compatible:1;
> > +       union {
> > +               __u32 gpl_compatible:1;
> > +               __u32 pad;
> > +       };
> 
> Nack for the reasons explained in the previous thread
> on the same subject.
> Why cannot you go with earlier suggestion of _u32 :31; ?

By the way, why not use aligned types as suggested by Geert?
They are already used for other members of struct bpf_prog_info anyway.

FWIW, we use aligned types for bpf in strace and that approach
proved to be more robust than manual padding.

-- 
ldv