On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:41:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Dmitry V. Levin <l...@altlinux.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 06:44:05PM +0200, Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> >> Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> doubts that __kernel_size_t could be used 
> >> here
> >> so trying to fall back to gcc's <stddef.h>.
> >
> > The only architecture where you cannot do this safely is x86 family
> > because of x32 exception.  If there is no chance that the change will
> > affect x32, feel free to replace size_t with __kernel_size_t like I did
> > some time ago, see
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170302002022.gb27...@altlinux.org
> 
> There is another problem: on some 32-bit architectures, size_t is
> defined as 'unsigned int', while '__kernel_size_t' is defined as 'unsigned
> long'. These obviously have the same size, but the man page
> explicitly defines it as 'size_t ss_size'.
> 
> If a user space program accesses the field in a way requires an
> exact type match, it gets a warning or error, e.g.
> 
> 1. printf("signal with %zd bytes\n", stack->ss_size);
> 2. size_t *pointer_to_size_t = &stack->ss_size;
> 3. assert(__builtin_types_compatible_p(size_t, typeof(stack->ss_size)))
> 
> Not sure how important those are, but I think there is at least a risk
> of any of those showing up in user space.

Agreed, one has to take this issue into consideration when replacing
size_t with __kernel_size_t.


-- 
ldv

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to