Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/tls: Don't validate lm in set_thread_area() after all

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> will leave .lm uninitialized.  This means that anything in the
>> kernel that reads user_desc.lm for 32-bit tasks is unreliable.
>
> No, it won't.  However, if you initialize this dynamically field by
> field rather than as an initializer, then you are correct.

Actually, even with a full initializer, unnamed parts of a structure
(so padding bytes between things, but for bitfields also unnamed
alignment fields etc) are basically "all bets are off". They are *not*
guaranteed to be initialized to zero.

So if you have a structure like

   struct {
       unsigned int a:5;
       unsigned int b;
   } x = { .a = 0, .b = 0 };

afaik the compiler is not guaranteed to initialize the left-over bits
in the first word. Because they simply don't "exist" as far as the C
language is concerned.

On the other hand, if you do

   struct {
        unsigned int a:5, unused:27;
        unsigned int b;
   } x = { .a = 0, .b = 0 };

then the 'unused' bits are guaranteed to be initialized to zero.

(Static allocations in the BSS are obviously zeroed for other reasons,
so there are no "left-over" bits there to worry about,. So in practice
the above is only about dynamic initializers).

                         Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/