ext4: fix ext4_tune_sb_params padding
PATCH v2 1/1 ext4: fix ext4_tune_sb_params padding
From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
The padding at the end of struct ext4_tune_sb_params is architecture specific and in particular is different between x86-32 and x86-64, since the __u64 member only enforces struct alignment on the latter.
This shows up as a new warning when test-building the headers with -Wpadded:
include/linux/ext4.h:144:1: error: padding struct size to alignment boundary with 4 bytes [-Werror=padded]
All members inside the structure are naturally aligned, so the only difference here is the amount of padding at the end.
Add explicit padding to mount_opts[] to keep the struct members compatible with the original version and also keep the pad[64] member 8-byte aligned for future extensions. This gives a consistent sizeof(struct ext4_tune_sb_params) of 232 on all architectures and avoids adding compat ioctl handling for EXT4_IOC_GET_TUNE_SB_PARAM/EXT4_IOC_SET_TUNE_SB_PARAM.
This is an ABI break on x86-32 but hopefully this can go into 6.18.y early enough as a fixup so no actual users will be affected.
---
v2: extend mount_opts[] instead of pad[], as suggested by Andreas Dilger
--- include/uapi/linux/ext4.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
include/uapi/linux/ext4.h +1 -1
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ struct ext4_tune_sb_params {__u32 clear_feature_compat_mask;__u32 clear_feature_incompat_mask;__u32 clear_feature_ro_compat_mask; -__u8 mount_opts[64 ]; +__u8 mount_opts[68 ];__u8 pad[64 ]; };
Signature · 1 line
2.39.5
Quoted 37 lines · Arnd Bergmann
From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
The padding at the end of struct
ext4_tune_sb_paramsis architecture specific and in particular is different between x86-32 and x86-64, since the__u64member only enforces struct alignment on the latter.This shows up as a new warning when test-building the headers with -Wpadded:
include/linux/ext4.h:144:1: error: padding struct size to alignment boundary with 4 bytes [-Werror=padded]All members inside the structure are naturally aligned, so the only difference here is the amount of padding at the end.
Add explicit padding to mount_opts[] to keep the struct members compatible with the original version and also keep the pad[64] member 8-byte aligned for future extensions. This gives a consistent
sizeof(struct ext4_tune_sb_params)of 232 on all architectures and avoids adding compat ioctl handling for EXT4_IOC_GET_TUNE_SB_PARAM/EXT4_IOC_SET_TUNE_SB_PARAM.This is an ABI break on x86-32 but hopefully this can go into 6.18.y early enough as a fixup so no actual users will be affected.
Fixes 04a91570ac67 ("ext4: implemet new ioctls to set and get superblock parameters")Reviewed-by Jan Kara <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>---
v2: extend mount_opts[] instead of pad[], as suggested by Andreas Dilger--- include/uapi/linux/ext4.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)include/uapi/linux/ext4.h +0
-0
include/uapi/linux/ext4.h struct ext4_tune_sb_params { · line 142
Quoted 5 lines
include/uapi/linux/ext4.h +1
-1@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ struct ext4_tune_sb_params {__u32 clear_feature_compat_mask;__u32 clear_feature_incompat_mask;__u32 clear_feature_ro_compat_mask; -__u8 mount_opts[64 ]; +__u8 mount_opts[68 ];
Hmm... given that the ondisk super field is a __u8[64], it feels weird to expose a __u8[68] field in the ioctl ABI and silently truncate the user's input if they try to use that many bytes. I'd have enlarged the padding field but as Ted was both author and maintainer I'm ok with letting him have the final say.
--D
Quoted 6 lines
include/uapi/linux/ext4.h +0
-0__u8 pad[64 ]; };Signature · 1 line
2.39.5
Jan Kara
reviewerQuoted 33 lines · Darrick J. Wong
Quoted 32 lines · Arnd Bergmann
From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
The padding at the end of struct
ext4_tune_sb_paramsis architecture specific and in particular is different between x86-32 and x86-64, since the__u64member only enforces struct alignment on the latter.This shows up as a new warning when test-building the headers with -Wpadded:
include/linux/ext4.h:144:1: error: padding struct size to alignment boundary with 4 bytes [-Werror=padded]All members inside the structure are naturally aligned, so the only difference here is the amount of padding at the end.
Add explicit padding to mount_opts[] to keep the struct members compatible with the original version and also keep the pad[64] member 8-byte aligned for future extensions. This gives a consistent
sizeof(struct ext4_tune_sb_params)of 232 on all architectures and avoids adding compat ioctl handling for EXT4_IOC_GET_TUNE_SB_PARAM/EXT4_IOC_SET_TUNE_SB_PARAM.This is an ABI break on x86-32 but hopefully this can go into 6.18.y early enough as a fixup so no actual users will be affected.
Fixes 04a91570ac67 ("ext4: implemet new ioctls to set and get superblock parameters")Reviewed-by Jan Kara <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>---
v2: extend mount_opts[] instead of pad[], as suggested by Andreas Dilger--- include/uapi/linux/ext4.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Quoted 16 lines
include/uapi/linux/ext4.h struct ext4_tune_sb_params { · line 142
Quoted 10 lines
include/uapi/linux/ext4.h +1
-1@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ struct ext4_tune_sb_params {__u32 clear_feature_compat_mask;__u32 clear_feature_incompat_mask;__u32 clear_feature_ro_compat_mask; -__u8 mount_opts[64 ]; +__u8 mount_opts[68 ];Hmm... given that the ondisk super field is a __u8[64], it feels weird to expose a __u8[68] field in the ioctl ABI and silently truncate the user's input if they try to use that many bytes. I'd have enlarged the padding field but as Ted was both author and maintainer I'm ok with letting him have the final say.
The point about silent truncation is a good one. I thought ext4_sb_setparams() checks the return value of strscpy_pad() but it doesn't so IMO that needs fixing.
Honza
Quoted 9 lines
--D
Quoted 6 lines
include/uapi/linux/ext4.h +0
-0__u8 pad[64 ]; };Signature · 1 line
2.39.5
Signature · 2 lines
Jan Kara <[email protected]> SUSE Labs, CR
Theodore Tso
maintainerQuoted 6 lines · Darrick J. Wong
Hmm... given that the ondisk super field is a __u8[64], it feels weird to expose a __u8[68] field in the ioctl ABI and silently truncate the user's input if they try to use that many bytes. I'd have enlarged the padding field but as Ted was both author and maintainer I'm ok with letting him have the final say.
Thanks, I've elected to the the original v1 version of the patch.
- Ted