Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] hw/s390x/ipl: Fix alignment problems of S390IPLState members

[David Hildenbrand]

On 25/09/2018 17:20, Thomas Huth wrote:
> The IplParameterBlock and QemuIplParameters structures are declared
> with QEMU_PACKED, so the compiler assumes that the structures do not
> need to be aligned in memory. Since the are listed after a "bool"
> within the S390IPLState, the IplParameterBlock and QemuIplParameters
> are also indeed mis-aligned in memory. This causes problems on Sparc
> during migration, since we use VMSTATE_UINT16 in vmstate_iplb to access
> the devno member for example, and the corresponding migration functions
> (like qemu_get_be16s) then try to access a 16-bit value from a mis-
> aligned memory address.
> The easiest solution to fix this problem is to move the packed structures
> to the beginning of the S390IPLState. Also add some additional comments
> here to prevent that this problem will be introduced again in the future.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> ---
>  hw/s390x/ipl.h | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/ipl.h b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> index 4e87b89..f72a82f 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> +++ b/hw/s390x/ipl.h
> @@ -132,15 +132,17 @@ typedef struct QemuIplParameters QemuIplParameters;
>  struct S390IPLState {
>      /*< private >*/
>      DeviceState parent_obj;
> +    /* Packed structs first (to make sure we've got a proper alignment): */

Is that a sad smiley at the end? ;)

> +    IplParameterBlock iplb;
> +    QemuIplParameters qipl;
> +    /* Other private members without packed attribute: */
>      uint64_t start_addr;
>      uint64_t compat_start_addr;
>      uint64_t bios_start_addr;
>      uint64_t compat_bios_start_addr;
>      bool enforce_bios;
> -    IplParameterBlock iplb;
>      bool iplb_valid;
>      bool netboot;
> -    QemuIplParameters qipl;
>      /* reset related properties don't have to be migrated or reset */
>      enum s390_reset reset_type;
>      int reset_cpu_index;
> 

Instead of the comment, compile time asserts using offsetof?

Anyhow

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb