On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 4:05 PM Dave Hansen dave.hansen@intel.com wrote:
On 3/14/24 07:26, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
/* image of the saved processor state */ struct saved_context {
/** On x86_32, all segment registers except gs are saved at kernel* entry in pt_regs.*/u16 gs; unsigned long cr0, cr2, cr3, cr4; u64 misc_enable; struct saved_msrs saved_msrs;@@ -27,6 +22,11 @@ struct saved_context { unsigned long tr; unsigned long safety; unsigned long return_address;
/** On x86_32, all segment registers except gs are saved at kernel* entry in pt_regs.*/u16 gs; bool misc_enable_saved;} __attribute__((packed));
Isn't this just kinda poking at the symptoms? This seems to be basically the exact same bug as b0b592cf08, just with a different source of unaligned structure members.
There's nothing to keep folks from reintroducing these kinds of issues and evidently no way to detect when they happen without lengthy reproducers.
This change is fine with me FWIW, but I agree that making it for kmemleak reasons feels kind of misguided.