On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:04:48PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 04:13:39PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 12:39:52AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > +static int put_data_header(struct send_ctx *sctx, u32 len)
> > > +{
> > > + struct btrfs_tlv_header *hdr;
> > > +
> > > + if (sctx->send_max_size - sctx->send_size < sizeof(*hdr) + len)
> > > + return -EOVERFLOW;
> > > + hdr = (struct btrfs_tlv_header *)(sctx->send_buf + sctx->send_size);
> > > + hdr->tlv_type = cpu_to_le16(BTRFS_SEND_A_DATA);
> > > + hdr->tlv_len = cpu_to_le16(len);
> >
> > I think we need put_unaligned_le16 here, it's mapping a random buffer to
> > a pointer, this is not alignment safe in general.
>
> I think you're right, although tlv_put() seems to have this same
> problem.
Indeed and there's more: tlv_put, TLV_PUT_DEFINE_INT, begin_cmd,
send_cmd. Other direct assignments are in local structs so the alignment
is fine.
