Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> wrote: > Hey Klemens, > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 9:13 AM Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > I worked with the patches from the wireguard-openbsd repository after > > version one of this diff on tech@ became a bit old. > > > > That was until yesterday; the kernel would panic due to memory > > alignment issues in various spots, `amd64# ping6 tunnel-ip.sparc64' > > would receive a single ICMP6 echo reply from the sparc64 peer before > > panicing its kernel very early in noise init code. > > > > I've had fixed a few bugs and ran into different panics during later > > code paths. > > > > Fortunately, using "rev. 2" of your diff on top of a clean checkout just > > works so far on sparc64 without any additional patches required - this > > is a very pleasnt suprise and I can start looking at it under production > > use cases more thoroughly now. > > That's good news that it's working for you now, but I didn't change > anything within the last 24 hours (you mentioned "yesterday") that > would seem related to this. So perhaps don't get too excited just yet. > I've got a decent MIPS setup here and a hacked up qemu for having a > bit more detail on alignment traps. I'll see if I can reproduce any > issues.
I suspect problems around forcing __packed. __packed is very dangerous. If you know the sizes of the objects are correctly sized and placed to not have gap-pads, then not using __packed might be better. __packed won't sae you from leaking gap bytes, either. We only run on ILP32 and I32LP64 ABIs, and all of them pack in the classic way...
