https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1359
This patch mostly silences some alignment related warnings reported by clang, but also fixes some real alignment issues.
But not all warnings are suppressed in this patch. These cases still generate warnings:
1)===================================================== src/util/refcount.c:63:25: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'int *' increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] wrapper->refcount = (int *)((char *)wrapper->ptr + refcount_offset); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/util/refcount.c:82:25: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'int *' increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] wrapper->refcount = (int *)((char *)wrapper->ptr + refcount_offset); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: This is not a problem, the data we access here is an integer that is part of a structure, so there should be no alignment issues (C compiler would not create a structure with inaccessible structure member). I think suppressing this warning with some additional casts would only confuse us later and make the code more obfuscated than it is.
2)===================================================== src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_sudo_hostinfo.c:233:24: warning: cast from 'struct sockaddr *' to 'struct sockaddr_in *' increases required alignment from 2 to 4 [-Wcast-align] ip4_addr = (struct sockaddr_in*)(iface->ifa_addr); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_sudo_hostinfo.c:267:27: warning: cast from 'struct sockaddr *' to 'struct sockaddr_in6 *' increases required alignment from 2 to 4 [-Wcast-align] ip6_network = (struct sockaddr_in6*)(iface->ifa_netmask); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...and other sockaddr related casts...
Comment: We only have to make sure that sockaddr is not allocated on stack here. But we use the getifaddrs() function for this, so it should be OK.
3)===================================================== src/sss_client/nss_services.c:137:29: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'char **' increases required alignment from 1 to 8 [-Wcast-align] sr->result->s_aliases = (char **) &(sr->buffer[i+pad]); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comment: Well, there is nothing we can do about this warning. We just make sure that the accessed data is aligned to sizeof(char **) using the pad variable (in the original code, we aligned it to 32 bits, but that was incorrect).
4)===================================================== src/sss_client/nss_mc_group.c:67:22: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'char **' increases required alignment from 1 to 8 [-Wcast-align] result->gr_mem = (char **)buffer; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
src/monitor/monitor.c:1588:16: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'struct inotify_event *' increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] in_event = (struct inotify_event *)buf; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
src/responder/nss/nsssrv_mmap_cache.c:281:22: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'rel_ptr_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] name_ptr = *((rel_ptr_t *)rec->data); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: Here we access the beginnings of allocated memory spaces. So it should be OK too. Adding some additional casts just to suppress the warnings is here IMO inappropriate (it is then not so clear what data type we use).
5)====================================================== src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:79:21: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->len = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[0]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:80:21: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->cmd = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[1]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:81:24: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->status = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[2]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:82:26: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->reserved = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[3]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:83:33: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->body = (uint8_t *)&((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[4]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:128:29: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->len = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[0]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:129:29: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->cmd = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[1]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:130:32: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->status = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[2]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:131:34: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->reserved = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[3]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:132:41: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->body = (uint8_t *)&((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[4]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: Same as number 4, but we also use addresses that are multiples of the sizeof(data_type_used) (relative to the beginning of the buffer). Which is OK.
================================================================ The rest of the warnings are suppressed by this patch.
I also have one question. Does talloc guarantee that the allocated block of memory (without the talloc related metadata) is aligned to the sizeof(biggest_primitive_C_data_type)? I know malloc does this, but I am not sure about talloc. I saw some places in the code, where we rely on this feature, so my guess is that talloc does it. Can someone confirm it? The above mentioned 3, 4 and 5 also rely on proper aligned memory block.
The patch is in attachment.
Thanks Michal
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 13:40 +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1359
This patch mostly silences some alignment related warnings reported by clang, but also fixes some real alignment issues.
But not all warnings are suppressed in this patch. These cases still generate warnings:
1)===================================================== src/util/refcount.c:63:25: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'int *' increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] wrapper->refcount = (int *)((char *)wrapper->ptr + refcount_offset); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/util/refcount.c:82:25: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'int *' increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] wrapper->refcount = (int *)((char *)wrapper->ptr + refcount_offset); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: This is not a problem, the data we access here is an integer that is part of a structure, so there should be no alignment issues (C compiler would not create a structure with inaccessible structure member). I think suppressing this warning with some additional casts would only confuse us later and make the code more obfuscated than it is.
2)===================================================== src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_sudo_hostinfo.c:233:24: warning: cast from 'struct sockaddr *' to 'struct sockaddr_in *' increases required alignment from 2 to 4 [-Wcast-align] ip4_addr = (struct sockaddr_in*)(iface->ifa_addr); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_sudo_hostinfo.c:267:27: warning: cast from 'struct sockaddr *' to 'struct sockaddr_in6 *' increases required alignment from 2 to 4 [-Wcast-align] ip6_network = (struct sockaddr_in6*)(iface->ifa_netmask); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...and other sockaddr related casts...
Comment: We only have to make sure that sockaddr is not allocated on stack here. But we use the getifaddrs() function for this, so it should be OK.
3)===================================================== src/sss_client/nss_services.c:137:29: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'char **' increases required alignment from 1 to 8 [-Wcast-align] sr->result->s_aliases = (char **) &(sr->buffer[i+pad]); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comment: Well, there is nothing we can do about this warning. We just make sure that the accessed data is aligned to sizeof(char **) using the pad variable (in the original code, we aligned it to 32 bits, but that was incorrect).
4)===================================================== src/sss_client/nss_mc_group.c:67:22: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'char **' increases required alignment from 1 to 8 [-Wcast-align] result->gr_mem = (char **)buffer; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
src/monitor/monitor.c:1588:16: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'struct inotify_event *' increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] in_event = (struct inotify_event *)buf; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
src/responder/nss/nsssrv_mmap_cache.c:281:22: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'rel_ptr_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] name_ptr = *((rel_ptr_t *)rec->data); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: Here we access the beginnings of allocated memory spaces. So it should be OK too. Adding some additional casts just to suppress the warnings is here IMO inappropriate (it is then not so clear what data type we use).
5)====================================================== src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:79:21: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->len = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[0]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:80:21: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->cmd = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[1]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:81:24: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->status = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[2]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:82:26: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->reserved = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[3]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:83:33: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->body = (uint8_t *)&((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[4]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:128:29: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->len = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[0]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:129:29: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->cmd = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[1]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:130:32: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->status = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[2]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:131:34: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->reserved = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[3]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:132:41: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->body = (uint8_t *)&((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[4]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: Same as number 4, but we also use addresses that are multiples of the sizeof(data_type_used) (relative to the beginning of the buffer). Which is OK.
================================================================ The rest of the warnings are suppressed by this patch.
I also have one question. Does talloc guarantee that the allocated block of memory (without the talloc related metadata) is aligned to the sizeof(biggest_primitive_C_data_type)? I know malloc does this, but I am not sure about talloc. I saw some places in the code, where we rely on this feature, so my guess is that talloc does it. Can someone confirm it? The above mentioned 3, 4 and 5 also rely on proper aligned memory block.
The patch is in attachment.
Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
Sorry Michael, haven't really checked as carefully as I want but I think with this patch you are changing the client protocol by changing one alignemnt.
You can't do that, changes to the client protocol are not allowed.
Can you confirm/deny ?
Simo.
On 10/11/2012 03:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 13:40 +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1359
This patch mostly silences some alignment related warnings reported by clang, but also fixes some real alignment issues.
But not all warnings are suppressed in this patch. These cases still generate warnings:
1)===================================================== src/util/refcount.c:63:25: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'int *' increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] wrapper->refcount = (int *)((char *)wrapper->ptr + refcount_offset); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/util/refcount.c:82:25: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'int *' increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] wrapper->refcount = (int *)((char *)wrapper->ptr + refcount_offset); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: This is not a problem, the data we access here is an integer that is part of a structure, so there should be no alignment issues (C compiler would not create a structure with inaccessible structure member). I think suppressing this warning with some additional casts would only confuse us later and make the code more obfuscated than it is.
2)===================================================== src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_sudo_hostinfo.c:233:24: warning: cast from 'struct sockaddr *' to 'struct sockaddr_in *' increases required alignment from 2 to 4 [-Wcast-align] ip4_addr = (struct sockaddr_in*)(iface->ifa_addr); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_sudo_hostinfo.c:267:27: warning: cast from 'struct sockaddr *' to 'struct sockaddr_in6 *' increases required alignment from 2 to 4 [-Wcast-align] ip6_network = (struct sockaddr_in6*)(iface->ifa_netmask); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...and other sockaddr related casts...
Comment: We only have to make sure that sockaddr is not allocated on stack here. But we use the getifaddrs() function for this, so it should be OK.
3)===================================================== src/sss_client/nss_services.c:137:29: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'char **' increases required alignment from 1 to 8 [-Wcast-align] sr->result->s_aliases = (char **) &(sr->buffer[i+pad]); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comment: Well, there is nothing we can do about this warning. We just make sure that the accessed data is aligned to sizeof(char **) using the pad variable (in the original code, we aligned it to 32 bits, but that was incorrect).
4)===================================================== src/sss_client/nss_mc_group.c:67:22: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'char **' increases required alignment from 1 to 8 [-Wcast-align] result->gr_mem = (char **)buffer; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
src/monitor/monitor.c:1588:16: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'struct inotify_event *' increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] in_event = (struct inotify_event *)buf; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
src/responder/nss/nsssrv_mmap_cache.c:281:22: warning: cast from 'char *' to 'rel_ptr_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] name_ptr = *((rel_ptr_t *)rec->data); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: Here we access the beginnings of allocated memory spaces. So it should be OK too. Adding some additional casts just to suppress the warnings is here IMO inappropriate (it is then not so clear what data type we use).
5)====================================================== src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:79:21: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->len = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[0]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:80:21: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->cmd = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[1]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:81:24: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->status = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[2]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:82:26: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->reserved = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[3]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:83:33: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->body = (uint8_t *)&((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[4]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:128:29: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->len = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[0]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:129:29: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->cmd = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[1]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:130:32: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->status = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[2]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:131:34: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->reserved = &((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[3]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ src/responder/common/responder_packet.c:132:41: warning: cast from 'uint8_t *' (aka 'unsigned char *') to 'uint32_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') increases required alignment from 1 to 4 [-Wcast-align] packet->body = (uint8_t *)&((uint32_t *)packet->buffer)[4]; ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: Same as number 4, but we also use addresses that are multiples of the sizeof(data_type_used) (relative to the beginning of the buffer). Which is OK.
================================================================ The rest of the warnings are suppressed by this patch.
I also have one question. Does talloc guarantee that the allocated block of memory (without the talloc related metadata) is aligned to the sizeof(biggest_primitive_C_data_type)? I know malloc does this, but I am not sure about talloc. I saw some places in the code, where we rely on this feature, so my guess is that talloc does it. Can someone confirm it? The above mentioned 3, 4 and 5 also rely on proper aligned memory block.
The patch is in attachment.
Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
Sorry Michael, haven't really checked as carefully as I want but I think with this patch you are changing the client protocol by changing one alignemnt.
You can't do that, changes to the client protocol are not allowed.
Can you confirm/deny ?
Simo.
Hello Simo,
do you mean this change?
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is 32 bit aligned */ + /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is aligned to sizeof (char **) */ pad = 0; - while((i + pad) % 4) { + while((i + pad) % sizeof(char **)) { pad++; }
I have a mistake here, it should have been sizeof(char *) not sizeof(char**), because we store pointers to char on that location. I know that this will probably be the same number, but it is still a mistake (I fixed it in the new patch).
But to your question. I think this does not change the client protocol, the function only reads the reply (the reply is in the client protocol format), but stores data into another buffer. As far as I understand the code, this new buffer has nothing to do with the client protocol (it is connected with the reply via those mentioned char pointers, but nothing more), but maybe I am wrong, it is not easy to read piece of code.
Or do you mean a different part of patch affects the client protocol?
Thanks Michal
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 20:44 +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
Sorry Michael, haven't really checked as carefully as I want but I think with this patch you are changing the client protocol by changing one
alignemnt.
You can't do that, changes to the client protocol are not allowed.
Can you confirm/deny ?
Simo.
Hello Simo,
do you mean this change?
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is 32 bit aligned */
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is aligned to sizeof (char **) */ pad = 0;
- while((i + pad) % 4) {
- while((i + pad) % sizeof(char **)) { pad++; }
I have a mistake here, it should have been sizeof(char *) not sizeof(char**), because we store pointers to char on that location. I know that this will probably be the same number, but it is still a mistake (I fixed it in the new patch).
But to your question. I think this does not change the client protocol, the function only reads the reply (the reply is in the client protocol format), but stores data into another buffer. As far as I understand the code, this new buffer has nothing to do with the client protocol (it is connected with the reply via those mentioned char pointers, but nothing more), but maybe I am wrong, it is not easy to read piece of code.
Or do you mean a different part of patch affects the client protocol?
This is the change I meant, and you are right this affects the internal buffer returned to glibc not the actual protocol.
I guess maybe we should rename some of those variable names to make it clearer what buffer are we referring to.
Thanks for double checking with me, this code is sometimes tricky and alignment issues make it trickier.
All the other alignment fixes look good to me, but the patch is quite bit, I wouldn't mind if a second pair of eyes could check and give a second ack.
Simo.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:34:03PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 20:44 +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
Sorry Michael, haven't really checked as carefully as I want but I think with this patch you are changing the client protocol by changing one
alignemnt.
You can't do that, changes to the client protocol are not allowed.
Can you confirm/deny ?
Simo.
Hello Simo,
do you mean this change?
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is 32 bit aligned */
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is aligned to sizeof (char **) */ pad = 0;
- while((i + pad) % 4) {
- while((i + pad) % sizeof(char **)) { pad++; }
I have a mistake here, it should have been sizeof(char *) not sizeof(char**), because we store pointers to char on that location. I know that this will probably be the same number, but it is still a mistake (I fixed it in the new patch).
But to your question. I think this does not change the client protocol, the function only reads the reply (the reply is in the client protocol format), but stores data into another buffer. As far as I understand the code, this new buffer has nothing to do with the client protocol (it is connected with the reply via those mentioned char pointers, but nothing more), but maybe I am wrong, it is not easy to read piece of code.
Or do you mean a different part of patch affects the client protocol?
This is the change I meant, and you are right this affects the internal buffer returned to glibc not the actual protocol.
I guess maybe we should rename some of those variable names to make it clearer what buffer are we referring to.
Thanks for double checking with me, this code is sometimes tricky and alignment issues make it trickier.
All the other alignment fixes look good to me, but the patch is quite bit, I wouldn't mind if a second pair of eyes could check and give a second ack.
Simo.
Thanks for checking the client part Simo.
I will review the code tomorrow or Monday. I moved the ticket to a later release because I think it touches quite a few parts of the SSSD so it's easy to overlook something. Also the patch is mostly useful to secondary architectures.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:07:55PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:34:03PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 20:44 +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
Sorry Michael, haven't really checked as carefully as I want but I think with this patch you are changing the client protocol by changing one
alignemnt.
You can't do that, changes to the client protocol are not allowed.
Can you confirm/deny ?
Simo.
Hello Simo,
do you mean this change?
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is 32 bit aligned */
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is aligned to sizeof (char **) */ pad = 0;
- while((i + pad) % 4) {
- while((i + pad) % sizeof(char **)) { pad++; }
I have a mistake here, it should have been sizeof(char *) not sizeof(char**), because we store pointers to char on that location. I know that this will probably be the same number, but it is still a mistake (I fixed it in the new patch).
But to your question. I think this does not change the client protocol, the function only reads the reply (the reply is in the client protocol format), but stores data into another buffer. As far as I understand the code, this new buffer has nothing to do with the client protocol (it is connected with the reply via those mentioned char pointers, but nothing more), but maybe I am wrong, it is not easy to read piece of code.
Or do you mean a different part of patch affects the client protocol?
This is the change I meant, and you are right this affects the internal buffer returned to glibc not the actual protocol.
I guess maybe we should rename some of those variable names to make it clearer what buffer are we referring to.
Thanks for double checking with me, this code is sometimes tricky and alignment issues make it trickier.
All the other alignment fixes look good to me, but the patch is quite bit, I wouldn't mind if a second pair of eyes could check and give a second ack.
Simo.
Thanks for checking the client part Simo.
I will review the code tomorrow or Monday. I moved the ticket to a later release because I think it touches quite a few parts of the SSSD so it's easy to overlook something. Also the patch is mostly useful to secondary architectures.
I'm sorry this patch got forgotten. Can you rebase it to the current master?
On 03/20/2013 01:53 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:07:55PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:34:03PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 20:44 +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
Sorry Michael, haven't really checked as carefully as I want but I think with this patch you are changing the client protocol by changing one
alignemnt.
You can't do that, changes to the client protocol are not allowed.
Can you confirm/deny ?
Simo.
Hello Simo,
do you mean this change?
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is 32 bit aligned */
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is aligned to sizeof (char **) */ pad = 0;
- while((i + pad) % 4) {
- while((i + pad) % sizeof(char **)) { pad++; }
I have a mistake here, it should have been sizeof(char *) not sizeof(char**), because we store pointers to char on that location. I know that this will probably be the same number, but it is still a mistake (I fixed it in the new patch).
But to your question. I think this does not change the client protocol, the function only reads the reply (the reply is in the client protocol format), but stores data into another buffer. As far as I understand the code, this new buffer has nothing to do with the client protocol (it is connected with the reply via those mentioned char pointers, but nothing more), but maybe I am wrong, it is not easy to read piece of code.
Or do you mean a different part of patch affects the client protocol?
This is the change I meant, and you are right this affects the internal buffer returned to glibc not the actual protocol.
I guess maybe we should rename some of those variable names to make it clearer what buffer are we referring to.
Thanks for double checking with me, this code is sometimes tricky and alignment issues make it trickier.
All the other alignment fixes look good to me, but the patch is quite bit, I wouldn't mind if a second pair of eyes could check and give a second ack.
Simo.
Thanks for checking the client part Simo.
I will review the code tomorrow or Monday. I moved the ticket to a later release because I think it touches quite a few parts of the SSSD so it's easy to overlook something. Also the patch is mostly useful to secondary architectures.
I'm sorry this patch got forgotten. Can you rebase it to the current master?
I think it is better to do the https://fedorahosted.org /sssd/ticket/1772 first, and then rebase this patch with the new macros used. I'll do it after I fix ticket #1741 (sss_cache doesn't support subdomains).
Michal
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 02:08:29PM +0100, Michal Židek wrote:
On 03/20/2013 01:53 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:07:55PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:34:03PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 20:44 +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
Sorry Michael, haven't really checked as carefully as I want but I think with this patch you are changing the client protocol by changing one
alignemnt.
You can't do that, changes to the client protocol are not allowed.
Can you confirm/deny ?
Simo.
Hello Simo,
do you mean this change?
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is 32 bit aligned */
- /* Make sure pr->buffer[i+pad] is aligned to sizeof (char **) */ pad = 0;
- while((i + pad) % 4) {
- while((i + pad) % sizeof(char **)) { pad++; }
I have a mistake here, it should have been sizeof(char *) not sizeof(char**), because we store pointers to char on that location. I know that this will probably be the same number, but it is still a mistake (I fixed it in the new patch).
But to your question. I think this does not change the client protocol, the function only reads the reply (the reply is in the client protocol format), but stores data into another buffer. As far as I understand the code, this new buffer has nothing to do with the client protocol (it is connected with the reply via those mentioned char pointers, but nothing more), but maybe I am wrong, it is not easy to read piece of code.
Or do you mean a different part of patch affects the client protocol?
This is the change I meant, and you are right this affects the internal buffer returned to glibc not the actual protocol.
I guess maybe we should rename some of those variable names to make it clearer what buffer are we referring to.
Thanks for double checking with me, this code is sometimes tricky and alignment issues make it trickier.
All the other alignment fixes look good to me, but the patch is quite bit, I wouldn't mind if a second pair of eyes could check and give a second ack.
Simo.
Thanks for checking the client part Simo.
I will review the code tomorrow or Monday. I moved the ticket to a later release because I think it touches quite a few parts of the SSSD so it's easy to overlook something. Also the patch is mostly useful to secondary architectures.
I'm sorry this patch got forgotten. Can you rebase it to the current master?
I think it is better to do the https://fedorahosted.org /sssd/ticket/1772 first, and then rebase this patch with the new macros used.
Good idea.
I'll do it after I fix ticket #1741 (sss_cache doesn't support subdomains).
Yes, that one definitely takes precedence, sure. I'm just trying to clean up the list :)
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Jakub Hrozek -
Michal Židek -
Simo Sorce