On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 at 10:16, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 09:35:42AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Akashi-san > > > > On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 at 10:33, Ilias Apalodimas > > <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 at 04:46, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Ilias, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 10:37:07PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > > Tom reports that when building with clang we see this warning: > > > > > field guid within 'struct efi_hii_keyboard_layout' is less aligned > > > > > than 'efi_guid_t' and is usually due to 'struct > > > > > efi_hii_keyboard_layout' being packed, which can lead to unaligned > > > > > accesses [-Wunaligned-access] > > > > > > > > > > This happens because 'struct efi_hii_keyboard_layout' is defined as > > > > > packed while efi_guid_t is 32bit aligned. > > > > > > > > There are a couple of 'struct' definitions which are *packed* > > > > and contain an 'efi_guid_t' member in efi_api.h. > > > > If 'efi_hii_keyboard_layout' is the only place that causes a clang > > > > warning, > > > > we need a more specific explanation to clarify the problem. > > > > > > I assumed that all other definitions are aligned regardless of packed, > > > i.e they are defined right after a u32, u64, 2xu16 etc, but I'll have > > > a closer look > > > > So I did look closer and my assumption was indeed correct. > > IOW the warning is the only place in the struct definition where > > efi_guid_t happens to be be aligned. > > My concern is that we use char[] in one place and efi_guid_t elsewhere. > It sounds arbitrary without any clear explanation.
I can send a v2 adding a comment, but I changed my mind as well. I think explicitly disabling the warning in such places (as Tom did on his original patch) is a better solution. We still have to add a comment about why, but I'd prefer keeping a consistent efi_guid_t as well Regards /Ilias > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > Tom would you like me to send a v2 on this? > > I think what happens here is that struct efi_hii_keyboard_layout is > > defined as packed, and efi_guid_t is aligned(4). > > So clang is trying to tell us: I will generate safe code for unaligned > > accesses, but one of the struct members requires specific alignment. > > > > Regards > > /Ilias > > > > > > > > > > > > However the EFI spec describes the EFI_GUID as > > > > > "128-bit buffer containing a unique identifier value. > > > > > Unless otherwise specified aligned on a 64-bit boundary" > > > > > > > > That's right, but this text in this context may sound misleading. > > > > (It doesn't explain why 'efi_guid_t' is 32-bit aligned.) > > > > > > commit 1dd705cf9903 ("efi: use 32-bit alignment for efi_guid_t") > > > explains why, but it's a bit orthogonal to this commit. In any case > > > I'll include it in v2 > > > > > > Thanks > > > /Ilias > > > > > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So convert the efi_guid_t -> u8 b[16] here and skip the alignment > > > > > requirements. > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > > > Suggested-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > include/efi_api.h | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/efi_api.h b/include/efi_api.h > > > > > index 2fd0221c1c77..b84b577bd7b5 100644 > > > > > --- a/include/efi_api.h > > > > > +++ b/include/efi_api.h > > > > > @@ -1170,7 +1170,7 @@ struct efi_key_descriptor { > > > > > > > > > > struct efi_hii_keyboard_layout { > > > > > u16 layout_length; > > > > > - efi_guid_t guid; > > > > > + u8 guid[16]; > > > > > u32 layout_descriptor_string_offset; > > > > > u8 descriptor_count; > > > > > /* struct efi_key_descriptor descriptors[]; follows here */ > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.39.2 > > > > >