From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752761AbbJRHYK (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:24:10 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:36011 "EHLO mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752173AbbJRHYI (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Oct 2015 03:24:08 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:24:02 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrey Ryabinin Cc: Borislav Petkov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Andrey Konovalov , Kostya Serebryany , Alexander Potapenko , kasan-dev , Denys Vlasenko , Andi Kleen , Dmitry Vyukov , Sasha Levin , Wolfram Gloger , "Paul E. McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] compiler, atomics: Provide READ_ONCE_NOKSAN() Message-ID: <20151018072402.GA15510@gmail.com> References: <1444739750-29241-1-git-send-email-aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> <1444988694-26043-1-git-send-email-aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> <1444988694-26043-2-git-send-email-aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> <20151016103338.GE31612@pd.tnic> <5620E66F.6050406@virtuozzo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5620E66F.6050406@virtuozzo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > On 10/16/2015 01:33 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:44:53PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > >> Some code may perform racy by design memory reads. This could be > >> harmless, yet such code may produce KASAN warnings. > >> > >> To hide such accesses from KASAN this patch introduces > >> READ_ONCE_NOKSAN() macro. KASAN will not check the memory > >> accessed by READ_ONCE_NOKSAN(). The KernelThreadSanitizer (KTSAN) > >> is going to ignore it as well. > > > > Frankly, the "NOKSAN" suffix is too specific. I know, I know, I'm > > bikeshedding but what happens if yet another tool wants to be disabled > > from checking there and that tool is not *SAN? We rename again? > > > > So the "NOCHECK" suffix made much more sense, even if it was generic. > > IMNSVHO. > > > > Sounds reasonable. > Ingo, what do you think? Fine with me too. Thanks, Ingo