drm/vc4: Add a pad field to align drm_vc4_submit_cl to 64 bits.
diff mbox

Message ID 20180430235927.28712-1-eric@anholt.net
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Eric Anholt April 30, 2018, 11:59 p.m. UTC
I had originally asked Stefan Schake to drop the pad field from the
syncobj changes that just landed, because I couldn't come up with a
reason to align to 64 bits.

Talking with Dave Airlie about the new v3d driver's submit ioctl, we
came up with a reason: sizeof() on 64-bit platforms may align to 64
bits, in which case the userspace will be submitting the aligned size
and the final 32 bits won't be zero-padded by the kernel.  If
userspace doesn't zero-fill, then a future ABI change adding a 32-bit
field at the end could potentially cause the kernel to read undefined
data from old userspace (our userspace happens to use structure
initialization that zero-fills, but as a general rule we try not to
rely on that in the kernel).

Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
---

danvet, could you update the "Botching up IOCTLs" post with this
explanation for why we need struct size alignment for non-array
structs?

 drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c | 5 +++++
 include/uapi/drm/vc4_drm.h    | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)

Comments

Stefan Schake May 1, 2018, 12:11 a.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:59 AM, Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> wrote:
> I had originally asked Stefan Schake to drop the pad field from the
> syncobj changes that just landed, because I couldn't come up with a
> reason to align to 64 bits.
>
> Talking with Dave Airlie about the new v3d driver's submit ioctl, we
> came up with a reason: sizeof() on 64-bit platforms may align to 64
> bits, in which case the userspace will be submitting the aligned size
> and the final 32 bits won't be zero-padded by the kernel.  If
> userspace doesn't zero-fill, then a future ABI change adding a 32-bit
> field at the end could potentially cause the kernel to read undefined
> data from old userspace (our userspace happens to use structure
> initialization that zero-fills, but as a general rule we try not to
> rely on that in the kernel).
>

Did a quick sizeof check on arm64 and that indeed came to 176 mod 8 = 0,
suggesting we need this additional pad. So fwiw

Reviewed-by: Stefan Schake <stschake@gmail.com>

Thanks,
Stefan

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c
index a4c4be3ac6af..7910b9acedd6 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c
@@ -1132,6 +1132,11 @@  vc4_submit_cl_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
+	if (args->pad2 != 0) {
+		DRM_DEBUG("Invalid pad: 0x%08x\n", args->pad2);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
 	exec = kcalloc(1, sizeof(*exec), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!exec) {
 		DRM_ERROR("malloc failure on exec struct\n");
diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/vc4_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/vc4_drm.h
index 2be4fe3610b8..2cac6277a1d7 100644
--- a/include/uapi/drm/vc4_drm.h
+++ b/include/uapi/drm/vc4_drm.h
@@ -193,6 +193,8 @@  struct drm_vc4_submit_cl {
 	 * render job. 0 means ignore.
 	 */
 	__u32 out_sync;
+
+	__u32 pad2;
 };
 
 /**