On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 09:53:38AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 14:07:39 +0200,
> Rich Felker wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 01:11:34PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 11:24:39 +0200,
> > > Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 10:43 AM Takashi Iwai <ti...@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 18:51:58 +0200, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 06:18:52PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -557,11 +558,15 @@ struct __snd_pcm_sync_ptr {
> > > > > #if defined(__BYTE_ORDER) ? __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN :
> > > > > defined(__BIG_ENDIAN)
> > > > > typedef char __pad_before_uframe[sizeof(__u64) -
> > > > > sizeof(snd_pcm_uframes_t)];
> > > > > typedef char __pad_after_uframe[0];
> > > > > +typedef char __pad_before_u32[4];
> > > > > +typedef char __pad_after_u32[0];
> > > > > #endif
> > > > >
> > > > > #if defined(__BYTE_ORDER) ? __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN :
> > > > > defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN)
> > > > > typedef char __pad_before_uframe[0];
> > > > > typedef char __pad_after_uframe[sizeof(__u64) -
> > > > > sizeof(snd_pcm_uframes_t)];
> > > > > +typedef char __pad_before_u32[0];
> > > > > +typedef char __pad_after_u32[4];
> > > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > I think these should remain unchanged, the complex expression was
> > > > intentionally
> > > > done so the structures are laid out the same way on 64-bit
> > > > architectures, so that
> > > > the kernel can use the __SND_STRUCT_TIME64 path internally on both
> > > > 32-bit
> > > > and 64-bit architectures.
> > >
> > > That was explicitly defined, but OK, this isn't necessarily defined
> > > here.
> > >
> > > > > @@ -2970,8 +2981,17 @@ static int snd_pcm_sync_ptr(struct
> > > > > snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> > > > > memset(&sync_ptr, 0, sizeof(sync_ptr));
> > > > > if (get_user(sync_ptr.flags, (unsigned __user
> > > > > *)&(_sync_ptr->flags)))
> > > > > return -EFAULT;
> > > > > - if (copy_from_user(&sync_ptr.c.control,
> > > > > &(_sync_ptr->c.control), sizeof(struct snd_pcm_mmap_control)))
> > > > > - return -EFAULT;
> > > > > + if (buggy_control) {
> > > > > + if (copy_from_user(&sync_ptr.c.control_api_2_0_15,
> > > > > + &(_sync_ptr->c.control_api_2_0_15),
> > > > > +
> > > > > sizeof(sync_ptr.c.control_api_2_0_15)))
> > > > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + if (copy_from_user(&sync_ptr.c.control,
> > > > > + &(_sync_ptr->c.control),
> > > > > + sizeof(sync_ptr.c.control)))
> > > > > + return -EFAULT;
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > The problem I see with this is that it might break musl's ability to
> > > > emulate the new
> > > > interface on top of the old (time32) one for linux-4.x and older
> > > > kernels, as the conversion
> > > > function is no longer stateless but has to know the negotiated
> > > > interface version.
> > > >
> > > > It's probably fine as long as we can be sure that the 2.0.16+ API
> > > > version only gets
> > > > negotiated if both the kernel and user sides support it, and musl only
> > > > emulates
> > > > the 2.0.15 API version from the current kernels.
> > > >
> > > > I've tried to understand this part of musl's convert_ioctl_struct(),
> > > > but I just
> > > > can't figure out whether it does the conversion based the on the layout
> > > > that
> > > > is currently used in the kernel, or based on the layout we should have
> > > > been
> > > > using, and would use with the above fix. Rich, can you help me here?
> > >
> > > So, at this moment, I'm not sure whether we should correct the struct
> > > at all. This will lead to yet more breakage, and basically the struct
> > > itself *works* -- the only bug is in 32bit compat handling in the
> > > kernel (again).
> > >
> > > The below is a revised kernel patch (again untested), just correcting
> > > the behavior of 32bit compat mode. 32bit apps on 32bit kernel work
> > > fine as is, as well as 64bit apps on 64bit kernel.
> >
> > I'm perfectly okay with this if Arnd is! It's probably the least
> > invasive and has the least long-term maintenance cost and fallout on
> > other projects.
>
> OK, I'll submit a proper patch now, to be included in the next PR for
> 5.15-rc. For further fixes, let's think carefully.
Am I correct in my understanding that the fix of keeping the "broken"
definition (and having the 64-bit kernel honor it for 32-bit binaries)
has been accepted? Since musl's translation for pre-time64 kernels
seems to have been using the "non-broken" definition, I think
completing the fix requires a change in musl too.
Rich
_______________________________________________
Y2038 mailing list
Y2038@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/y2038
