From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BC4C433F5 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:43:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232153AbhLIXr3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Dec 2021 18:47:29 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:35974 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229760AbhLIXr3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Dec 2021 18:47:29 -0500 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 1B9NenKY023746; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 17:40:49 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 1B9NemuX023745; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 17:40:48 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 17:40:48 -0600 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Martin Sebor Cc: David Malcolm , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] RFC: adding support to GCC for detecting trust boundaries Message-ID: <20211209234048.GY614@gate.crashing.org> References: <20211113203732.2098220-1-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <20211206194025.GQ614@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 09:42:04AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 12/6/21 12:40 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >Named address spaces are completely target-specific. > > My understanding of these kernel/user address spaces that David > is adding for the benefit of the analyzer is that the correspond > to what TR 18037 calls nested namespaces. They're nested within > the generic namespace that's a union of the twp. With that, I'd > expect them to be fully handled early on and be transparent > afterwards. Is implementing this idea not feasible in the GCC > design? As long as you can explain it, it can be implemented. What I am saying though is it is imnsho a very bad idea to try to implement this in terms of named address spaces (which is a GCC extension). Segher