Merge tag 'docs-5.8' of git://git.lwn.net/linux

Pull documentation updates from Jonathan Corbet:
 "A fair amount of stuff this time around, dominated by yet another
  massive set from Mauro toward the completion of the RST conversion. I
  *really* hope we are getting close to the end of this. Meanwhile,
  those patches reach pretty far afield to update document references
  around the tree; there should be no actual code changes there. There
  will be, alas, more of the usual trivial merge conflicts.

  Beyond that we have more translations, improvements to the sphinx
  scripting, a number of additions to the sysctl documentation, and lots
  of fixes"

* tag 'docs-5.8' of git://git.lwn.net/linux: (130 commits)
  Documentation: fixes to the maintainer-entry-profile template
  zswap: docs/vm: Fix typo accept_threshold_percent in zswap.rst
  tracing: Fix events.rst section numbering
  docs: acpi: fix old http link and improve document format
  docs: filesystems: add info about efivars content
  Documentation: LSM: Correct the basic LSM description
  mailmap: change email for Ricardo Ribalda
  docs: sysctl/kernel: document unaligned controls
  Documentation: admin-guide: update bug-hunting.rst
  docs: sysctl/kernel: document ngroups_max
  nvdimm: fixes to maintainter-entry-profile
  Documentation/features: Correct RISC-V kprobes support entry
  Documentation/features: Refresh the arch support status files
  Revert "docs: sysctl/kernel: document ngroups_max"
  docs: move locking-specific documents to locking/
  docs: move digsig docs to the security book
  docs: move the kref doc into the core-api book
  docs: add IRQ documentation at the core-api book
  docs: debugging-via-ohci1394.txt: add it to the core-api book
  docs: fix references for ipmi.rst file
  ...

4 files changed, 268 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst b/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst
index 1c3a840d06b9..a6b4a3a5bf3f 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ interface.
        to a somewhat opaque API.
 
  - If you're just exposing runtime system information, a new node in sysfs
-   (see ``Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt``) or the ``/proc`` filesystem may
+   (see ``Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.rst``) or the ``/proc`` filesystem may
    be more appropriate.  However, access to these mechanisms requires that the
    relevant filesystem is mounted, which might not always be the case (e.g.
    in a namespaced/sandboxed/chrooted environment).  Avoid adding any API to
diff --git a/Documentation/process/index.rst b/Documentation/process/index.rst
index 6399d92f0b21..f07c9250c3ac 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/index.rst
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ lack of a better place.
    botching-up-ioctls
    clang-format
    ../riscv/patch-acceptance
+   unaligned-memory-access
 
 .. only::  subproject and html
 
diff --git a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
index 8e56337d422d..3f8e9d5d95c2 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ and elsewhere regarding submitting Linux kernel patches.
     and why.
 
 26) If any ioctl's are added by the patch, then also update
-    ``Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst``.
+    ``Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst``.
 
 27) If your modified source code depends on or uses any of the kernel
     APIs or features that are related to the following ``Kconfig`` symbols,
diff --git a/Documentation/process/unaligned-memory-access.rst b/Documentation/process/unaligned-memory-access.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..1ee82419d8aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/unaligned-memory-access.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
+=========================
+Unaligned Memory Accesses
+=========================
+
+:Author: Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org>,
+:Author: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
+
+:With help from: Alan Cox, Avuton Olrich, Heikki Orsila, Jan Engelhardt,
+  Kyle McMartin, Kyle Moffett, Randy Dunlap, Robert Hancock, Uli Kunitz,
+  Vadim Lobanov
+
+
+Linux runs on a wide variety of architectures which have varying behaviour
+when it comes to memory access. This document presents some details about
+unaligned accesses, why you need to write code that doesn't cause them,
+and how to write such code!
+
+
+The definition of an unaligned access
+=====================================
+
+Unaligned memory accesses occur when you try to read N bytes of data starting
+from an address that is not evenly divisible by N (i.e. addr % N != 0).
+For example, reading 4 bytes of data from address 0x10004 is fine, but
+reading 4 bytes of data from address 0x10005 would be an unaligned memory
+access.
+
+The above may seem a little vague, as memory access can happen in different
+ways. The context here is at the machine code level: certain instructions read
+or write a number of bytes to or from memory (e.g. movb, movw, movl in x86
+assembly). As will become clear, it is relatively easy to spot C statements
+which will compile to multiple-byte memory access instructions, namely when
+dealing with types such as u16, u32 and u64.
+
+
+Natural alignment
+=================
+
+The rule mentioned above forms what we refer to as natural alignment:
+When accessing N bytes of memory, the base memory address must be evenly
+divisible by N, i.e. addr % N == 0.
+
+When writing code, assume the target architecture has natural alignment
+requirements.
+
+In reality, only a few architectures require natural alignment on all sizes
+of memory access. However, we must consider ALL supported architectures;
+writing code that satisfies natural alignment requirements is the easiest way
+to achieve full portability.
+
+
+Why unaligned access is bad
+===========================
+
+The effects of performing an unaligned memory access vary from architecture
+to architecture. It would be easy to write a whole document on the differences
+here; a summary of the common scenarios is presented below:
+
+ - Some architectures are able to perform unaligned memory accesses
+   transparently, but there is usually a significant performance cost.
+ - Some architectures raise processor exceptions when unaligned accesses
+   happen. The exception handler is able to correct the unaligned access,
+   at significant cost to performance.
+ - Some architectures raise processor exceptions when unaligned accesses
+   happen, but the exceptions do not contain enough information for the
+   unaligned access to be corrected.
+ - Some architectures are not capable of unaligned memory access, but will
+   silently perform a different memory access to the one that was requested,
+   resulting in a subtle code bug that is hard to detect!
+
+It should be obvious from the above that if your code causes unaligned
+memory accesses to happen, your code will not work correctly on certain
+platforms and will cause performance problems on others.
+
+
+Code that does not cause unaligned access
+=========================================
+
+At first, the concepts above may seem a little hard to relate to actual
+coding practice. After all, you don't have a great deal of control over
+memory addresses of certain variables, etc.
+
+Fortunately things are not too complex, as in most cases, the compiler
+ensures that things will work for you. For example, take the following
+structure::
+
+	struct foo {
+		u16 field1;
+		u32 field2;
+		u8 field3;
+	};
+
+Let us assume that an instance of the above structure resides in memory
+starting at address 0x10000. With a basic level of understanding, it would
+not be unreasonable to expect that accessing field2 would cause an unaligned
+access. You'd be expecting field2 to be located at offset 2 bytes into the
+structure, i.e. address 0x10002, but that address is not evenly divisible
+by 4 (remember, we're reading a 4 byte value here).
+
+Fortunately, the compiler understands the alignment constraints, so in the
+above case it would insert 2 bytes of padding in between field1 and field2.
+Therefore, for standard structure types you can always rely on the compiler
+to pad structures so that accesses to fields are suitably aligned (assuming
+you do not cast the field to a type of different length).
+
+Similarly, you can also rely on the compiler to align variables and function
+parameters to a naturally aligned scheme, based on the size of the type of
+the variable.
+
+At this point, it should be clear that accessing a single byte (u8 or char)
+will never cause an unaligned access, because all memory addresses are evenly
+divisible by one.
+
+On a related topic, with the above considerations in mind you may observe
+that you could reorder the fields in the structure in order to place fields
+where padding would otherwise be inserted, and hence reduce the overall
+resident memory size of structure instances. The optimal layout of the
+above example is::
+
+	struct foo {
+		u32 field2;
+		u16 field1;
+		u8 field3;
+	};
+
+For a natural alignment scheme, the compiler would only have to add a single
+byte of padding at the end of the structure. This padding is added in order
+to satisfy alignment constraints for arrays of these structures.
+
+Another point worth mentioning is the use of __attribute__((packed)) on a
+structure type. This GCC-specific attribute tells the compiler never to
+insert any padding within structures, useful when you want to use a C struct
+to represent some data that comes in a fixed arrangement 'off the wire'.
+
+You might be inclined to believe that usage of this attribute can easily
+lead to unaligned accesses when accessing fields that do not satisfy
+architectural alignment requirements. However, again, the compiler is aware
+of the alignment constraints and will generate extra instructions to perform
+the memory access in a way that does not cause unaligned access. Of course,
+the extra instructions obviously cause a loss in performance compared to the
+non-packed case, so the packed attribute should only be used when avoiding
+structure padding is of importance.
+
+
+Code that causes unaligned access
+=================================
+
+With the above in mind, let's move onto a real life example of a function
+that can cause an unaligned memory access. The following function taken
+from include/linux/etherdevice.h is an optimized routine to compare two
+ethernet MAC addresses for equality::
+
+  bool ether_addr_equal(const u8 *addr1, const u8 *addr2)
+  {
+  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+	u32 fold = ((*(const u32 *)addr1) ^ (*(const u32 *)addr2)) |
+		   ((*(const u16 *)(addr1 + 4)) ^ (*(const u16 *)(addr2 + 4)));
+
+	return fold == 0;
+  #else
+	const u16 *a = (const u16 *)addr1;
+	const u16 *b = (const u16 *)addr2;
+	return ((a[0] ^ b[0]) | (a[1] ^ b[1]) | (a[2] ^ b[2])) == 0;
+  #endif
+  }
+
+In the above function, when the hardware has efficient unaligned access
+capability, there is no issue with this code.  But when the hardware isn't
+able to access memory on arbitrary boundaries, the reference to a[0] causes
+2 bytes (16 bits) to be read from memory starting at address addr1.
+
+Think about what would happen if addr1 was an odd address such as 0x10003.
+(Hint: it'd be an unaligned access.)
+
+Despite the potential unaligned access problems with the above function, it
+is included in the kernel anyway but is understood to only work normally on
+16-bit-aligned addresses. It is up to the caller to ensure this alignment or
+not use this function at all. This alignment-unsafe function is still useful
+as it is a decent optimization for the cases when you can ensure alignment,
+which is true almost all of the time in ethernet networking context.
+
+
+Here is another example of some code that could cause unaligned accesses::
+
+	void myfunc(u8 *data, u32 value)
+	{
+		[...]
+		*((u32 *) data) = cpu_to_le32(value);
+		[...]
+	}
+
+This code will cause unaligned accesses every time the data parameter points
+to an address that is not evenly divisible by 4.
+
+In summary, the 2 main scenarios where you may run into unaligned access
+problems involve:
+
+ 1. Casting variables to types of different lengths
+ 2. Pointer arithmetic followed by access to at least 2 bytes of data
+
+
+Avoiding unaligned accesses
+===========================
+
+The easiest way to avoid unaligned access is to use the get_unaligned() and
+put_unaligned() macros provided by the <asm/unaligned.h> header file.
+
+Going back to an earlier example of code that potentially causes unaligned
+access::
+
+	void myfunc(u8 *data, u32 value)
+	{
+		[...]
+		*((u32 *) data) = cpu_to_le32(value);
+		[...]
+	}
+
+To avoid the unaligned memory access, you would rewrite it as follows::
+
+	void myfunc(u8 *data, u32 value)
+	{
+		[...]
+		value = cpu_to_le32(value);
+		put_unaligned(value, (u32 *) data);
+		[...]
+	}
+
+The get_unaligned() macro works similarly. Assuming 'data' is a pointer to
+memory and you wish to avoid unaligned access, its usage is as follows::
+
+	u32 value = get_unaligned((u32 *) data);
+
+These macros work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as
+in the examples above). Be aware that when compared to standard access of
+aligned memory, using these macros to access unaligned memory can be costly in
+terms of performance.
+
+If use of such macros is not convenient, another option is to use memcpy(),
+where the source or destination (or both) are of type u8* or unsigned char*.
+Due to the byte-wise nature of this operation, unaligned accesses are avoided.
+
+
+Alignment vs. Networking
+========================
+
+On architectures that require aligned loads, networking requires that the IP
+header is aligned on a four-byte boundary to optimise the IP stack. For
+regular ethernet hardware, the constant NET_IP_ALIGN is used. On most
+architectures this constant has the value 2 because the normal ethernet
+header is 14 bytes long, so in order to get proper alignment one needs to
+DMA to an address which can be expressed as 4*n + 2. One notable exception
+here is powerpc which defines NET_IP_ALIGN to 0 because DMA to unaligned
+addresses can be very expensive and dwarf the cost of unaligned loads.
+
+For some ethernet hardware that cannot DMA to unaligned addresses like
+4*n+2 or non-ethernet hardware, this can be a problem, and it is then
+required to copy the incoming frame into an aligned buffer. Because this is
+unnecessary on architectures that can do unaligned accesses, the code can be
+made dependent on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS like so::
+
+	#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
+		skb = original skb
+	#else
+		skb = copy skb
+	#endif