[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Possible incorrect usage of STACKALIGN in kern_exec
I am currently working on a NetBSD port for the FriendlyARM MINI2440,
and have run into a situation where the arguments to user space
programs is garbled.
I've noticed it for the init-process and for the getty process.
Booting with rc_configured=NO in /etc/rc.conf, mounting procfs, and
issuing a cat /proc/1/cmdline will yields "init" followed by
"garbage". Always 0x5C 0xEF
0xFF 0xBF 0x02
Digging a bit around the kernel, I have noticed that line 796 in
kern_exec.c (execve1) has a special case for ARM only (as far as I can
len = STACKALIGN(len); /* make the stack "safely" aligned */
STACKALIGN aligns is implemented in arch/arm/include/param.h:
96 /* ARM-specific macro to align a stack pointer (downwards). */
97 #define STACKALIGNBYTES (8 - 1)
98 #define STACKALIGN(p) ((u_int)(p) &~ STACKALIGNBYTES)
So it's basically truncates to proper alignment, rounding down to an
aligned number. Rounding down lengths seems like a dangerous thing to
Removing the usage of STACKALIGN and always using ALIGN, solves the
problem for the MINI2440-port.
Looking a the history of kern_exec.c, the following code was commited
in 1.243 in March 2007:
+#ifdef STACKLALIGN /* arm, etc. */
+ len = STACKALIGN(len); /* make the stack "safely" aligned */
len = ALIGN(len); /* make the stack "safely" aligned */
Notice that the #ifdef checks for STACK*L*ALIGN, which is not defined
anywhere in the kernel.
In August 2011 the typo was fixed in r.1.323, meaning that the
STACKALIGN macro has not been used until 4 months ago. This indicates
to me that STACKALIGN is not really supposed to be used in this
situation (and neither OpenBSD nor FreeBSD have it, although much of
the surrounding code is similar).
Is the usage of STACKALIGN indeed incorrect in this situation, or am I
missing the big picture?
Main Index |
Thread Index |