On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:05:21AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 at 09:52, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 09:49:12AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I understand what would go wrong if that assumption no
> > > longer holds.
> >
> > It's very simple, we don't do anything to the pointer returned
> > by kmalloc before returning it as a tfm or other object with
> > an alignment of CRYPTO_MINALIGN. IOW if kmalloc starts returning
> > pointers that are not aligned to CRYPTO_MINALIGN then we'd be
> > lying to the compiler.
>
> I guess that should be fixable. GIven that this is about padding
> rather than alignment, we could do something like
>
> struct crypto_request {
> union {
> struct {
> ... fields ...
> };
> u8 __padding[ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN];
> };
> void __ctx[] __align(CRYPTO_MINALIGN);
> };
>
> And then hopefully, we can get rid of the padding once we fix drivers
> doing non-cache coherent inbound DMA into those structures.
But if we keep CRYPTO_MINALIGN as 128, don't we get the padding
automatically?
struct crypto_request {
...
void *__ctx[] CRYPTO_MINALIGN_ATTR;
};
__alignof__(struct crypto_request) == 128;
sizeof(struct crypto_request) == N * 128
The same alignment and size is true for a structure like:
struct crypto_alg {
...
} CRYPTO_MINALIGN_ATTR;
Any kmalloc() of sizeof(the above structures) will return a pointer
aligned to 128, irrespective of what ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN is.
The problem is if you have a structure without any alignment attribute
(just ABI default), making its sizeof() smaller than ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN.
In this case kmalloc() could return a pointer aligned to something
smaller. Is this the case in the crypto code today? I can see it uses
the right alignment annotations already, no need for kmalloc() hacks.
--
Catalin
