Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:58:26 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r304555 - head/sys/compat/cloudabi Message-ID: <20160821135826.GB8192@zxy.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <20160821232721.G2639@besplex.bde.org> References: <201608210741.u7L7fBnN075023@repo.freebsd.org> <20160821105207.GS22212@zxy.spb.ru> <20160821210751.J2219@besplex.bde.org> <20160821120016.GZ8192@zxy.spb.ru> <20160821223255.K2478@besplex.bde.org> <20160821131447.GA8192@zxy.spb.ru> <20160821232721.G2639@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:39:02PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Sun, 21 Aug 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:00:24PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2016, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > >> > >>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 09:32:35PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > >>> ... > >>>> *(foo_t *)asks for alignment bugs. We have already fixed lots of these > >>>> bugs for copying struct timevals in places like ping.c. Compilers warn > >>>> about misalignment when certain warnings are enabled, but only on arches > >>>> where misalignment is more than a pessimization. There is no reason why > >>>> td_retval would be always aligned on these arches. Alignment of 64-bit > >>>> types on 32-bit arches is usually so unimportant that even int32_t is > >>>> not required to be aligned by the ABI, and there is no point in > >>>> aligning td_retval specially unless you also do it for a large fraction > >>>> of 64-bit integers in the kernel, and there are negative points for > >>>> doing that. > >>> > >>> For eliminate aligment bugs need to replace all assigment more then 1 > >>> bytes to *td_retval by memcpy? > >> > >> The copying must be of size 1 or 2 ints unless you are making even larger > >> type puns than now. 1 int is obviously safe to just assign, and 2 ints > >> should use memcpy(). > > > > Why? > > If it has size not 1 * sizeof(int) or 2 * sizeof(int) or is not an integer, > than it is had to assign to a 2-byte array and might need more careful > packing just to memcpy() it. I am miss you point. > > I am remeber about platforms with missaligment trap when > > accessing int16 by odd address. Now platforms like this do not exist > > anymore? > > i386 still exists, and it supports trapping on misalignement for at least > CPL 3 (not kernel CPL 0). IIRC, amd64 drops support for this. Someone enable and support this? I am don't see. May be PPC trap on this? Alpha trap on this, but support of Alpha is droped. > >> There are also endianness problems. The old version was even more broken > >> on big endian systems. The current version needs some magic to reverse > >> the memcpy() of the bits. We already depend on this for some 64-bit > >> syscalls like lseek(). > > > > Can you explain some more? > > This is not transfer over network and don't read from external media. > > Where is problem? > > It is similar to a network transfer. It needs a protocol to pass values > to applications. Type puns are fragile even within a single compilation > unit. Application ad kernel run with same byte order, not?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160821135826.GB8192>