Re: [PATCH] tracing/user_events: align uaddr on unsigned long alignment

[Clément Léger]

On 14/09/2023 19:29, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 13:17:00 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Now lets look at big endian layout:
>>
>>  uaddr = 0xbeef0004
>>  enabler = 1;
>>
>>  memory at 0xbeef0000:  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02
>>                                     ^
>>                                     addr: 0xbeef0004
>>
>> 				(enabler is set )
>>
>> 	bitoffset = uaddr & (sizeof(unsigned long) - 1); bitoffset = 4
>> 	bit_offset *= 8;				 bitoffset = 32
>> 	uaddr &= ~(sizeof(unsigned long) - 1);		 uaddr = 0xbeef0000
>>
>> 	ptr = kaddr + (uaddr & ~PAGE_MASK);
>>
>> 	clear_bit(1 + 32, ptr);
>>
>>  memory at 0xbeef0000:  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02
>>                                   ^
>> 				bit 33 of 0xbeef0000
>>
>> I don't think that's what you expected!
> 
> I believe the above can be fixed with:
> 
> 	bit_offset = uaddr & (sizeof(unsigned long) - 1);
> 	if (bit_offset) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN
> 		bit_offest = 0;
> #else
> 		bit_offset *= BITS_PER_BYTE;
> #endif
> 		uaddr &= ~(sizeof(unsigned long) - 1);
> 	}
> 
> -- Steve


Actually, after looking more in depth at that, it seems like there are
actually 2 problems that can happen.

First one is atomic access misalignment due to enable_size == 4 and
uaddr not being aligned on a (long) boundary on 64 bits architecture.
This can generate misaligned exceptions on various architectures. This
can be fixed in a more general way according to Masami snippet.

Second one that I can see is on 64 bits, big endian architectures with
enable_size == 4. In that case, the bit provided by the userspace won't
be correctly set since this code kind of assume that the atomic are done
on 32bits value. Since the kernel assume long sized atomic operation, on
big endian 64 bits architecture, the updated bit will actually be in the
next 32 bits word.

Can someone confirm my understanding ?

Clément