Messages in this thread |
<div dir="ltr"><b style="font-weight:normal" id="gmail-docs-internal-guid-e4b05990-dca1-4f17-94c5-d2141c339ad6"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">We (Android) are very interested in removing the restriction for 32-bit userspace processes accessing xfrm netlink on 64-bit kernels. IPsec support is required to pass Android conformance tests, and any manufacturer wishing to ship 32-bit userspace with a recent kernel needs out-of-tree changes (removing the compat_task check) to do so.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">That said, it’s not difficult to work around alignment issues directly in userspace, so maybe we could just remove the check and make this the caller's responsibility? Here’s an example of the workaround currently in the Android tree:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><a href="https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/netd/+/refs/heads/master/server/XfrmController.h#257" style="text-decoration:none"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(17,85,204);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/netd/+/refs/heads/master/server/XfrmController.h#257</span></a></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">We could also employ a (relatively simple) solution such as the one above in the uapi XFRM header itself, though it would require a caller to declare the target kernel ABI at compile time. Maybe that’s not unthinkable for an uncommon case?</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">-Nathan</span></p></b><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Dmitry Safonov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dima@arista.com" target="_blank">dima@arista.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 16:19 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:<br> | ||||||||||||
Last update: 2018-07-27 18:55 [W:0.064 / U:0.184 seconds] ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site |