From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751117AbdALVS5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:18:57 -0500 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:57760 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750760AbdALVSz (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:18:55 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:18:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20170112.161852.1469407145449781531.davem@davemloft.net> To: shannon.nelson@oracle.com Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com, rob.gardner@oracle.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: fix tcp_fastopen unaligned access complaints on sparc From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <131ec7b7-5b74-2545-8bf7-92812443a876@oracle.com> References: <1c39bf41-4ebf-643a-c6a0-caf98a17a89c@oracle.com> <20170112.154143.1940764507974590907.davem@davemloft.net> <131ec7b7-5b74-2545-8bf7-92812443a876@oracle.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:19:46 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Shannon Nelson Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:56:08 -0800 > > > On 1/12/2017 12:41 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Shannon Nelson >> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:30:38 -0800 >> >>> On 1/12/2017 12:25 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2017-01-12 at 13:15 -0700, Rob Gardner wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I suspect that someplace, somebody is casting val to an int * or >>>>> something like that. >>>> >>>> Then that would be the bug. Can we root cause this please ? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Look in net/ipv4/tcp_fastopen.c:tcp_fastopen_cookie_gen() for the line >>> >>> struct in6_addr *buf = (struct in6_addr *) tmp.val; >> >> Oh yeah, that's it. I didn't notice that at all. >> > > It looked to me like swapping the data fields would be the easiest and > least impactive way to fix this. I didn't want to mess with the > logic. I'm certainly open to other suggestions. Given the nature of the problem, your fix is probably fine. Eric, any objections?