On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 04:56:35PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > [NETFILTER] x_tables: Fix XT_ALIGN() macro on [at least] ppc32
> > [...]
> > The fix is an ugly kludge, but it has been tested to solve the problem. Yet
> > another reason to move away from the current {ip,ip6,arp,eb}tables like
> > data structures.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harald Welte <[email protected]>
>
> Harald, I'm going to modify this to just use u_int64_t as that
> should be totally sufficient.
>
> It is the largest type, and will produce the desired results without
> the silly structure.
Sorry dave, as I just learned, it isn't. As reported by Jiri Slaby
<[email protected]>, Linus' tree now breaks on i386 :(
Interestingly, on i386:
__alignof__(struct _xt_align) 4
__alignof__(u_int64_t) 8
__alignof__(void *) 4
whereas on ppc:
__alignof__(struct _xt_align) 8
__alignof__(u_int64_t) 8
__alignof__(void *) 4
So your assumption that __alignof__(u_int64_t) == __alignof__(struct xt_align)
doesn't hold true for all archs.
I would therefore recommend applying my unmodified patch, and hope that
it then works on all archs simultaneously.
> Some malloc() implementations use "long double" to figure out the
> largest type size and alignment requirements any C type might have
> on the machine. But there is no reason to use that here.
Our main problem is that we have to stay compatible with old userspace
programs that had a different definition for what has now become
XT_ALIGN(). So independent what might be the best solution from an
alignment point of view, we must match what old userspace thinks.
Yes, this all sucks. And yes, we will see a new interface this year.
Promised.
Cheers,
Harald.
--
- Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
"Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
Attachment:
pgpmOjoDCYySU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- 2.6.16-rc1: iptables broken on ppc32?
- From: Mikael Pettersson <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.16-rc1: iptables broken on ppc32?
- From: Harald Welte <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] x_tables: fix alignment on [at least] ppc32 (was Re: 2.6.16-rc1: iptables broken on ppc32?)
- From: Harald Welte <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] x_tables: fix alignment on [at least] ppc32
- From: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
- 2.6.16-rc1: iptables broken on ppc32?
- Prev by Date: Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 000 of 5] md: Introduction
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] x_tables: fix alignment on [at least] ppc32
- Next by thread: 2.6.16-rc1-kj1
- Index(es):
 |