From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
"Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] init: Mark start_kernel() __noreturn
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 13:29:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZDcUvWuqv2VevITe@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cb5dab6038dfe5156f5d68424cf372f7eed1b934.1680912057.git.jpoimboe@kernel.org>
On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 05:09:55PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Fixes the following warning:
>
> vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: x86_64_start_reservations+0x28: unreachable instruction
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202302161142.K3ziREaj-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Ah, I just realized that my series will conflict with this.
https://lore.kernel.org/llvm/20230412-no_stackp-v1-1-46a69b507a4b@google.com/
Perhaps if my series gets positive feedback; I can rebase it on top of
this and it can become part of your series?
For this patch,
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Though I'm curious, it does look like it's necessary because of 01/11 in
the series? Any idea how the 0day bot report happened before 1/11
existed?
(Surely gcc isn't assuming a weak function is implicitly noreturn and
make optimizations based on that (that's one hazard I'm worried about)?)
It looks like perhaps the link to
https://lore.kernel.org/all/202302161142.K3ziREaj-lkp@intel.com/
on 2/11 was 0day testing the arch-cpu-idle-dead-noreturn branch of your
kernel tree
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jpoimboe/linux.git/log/?h=arch-cpu-idle-dead-noreturn
, which had 1/11 in it, IIUC? Perhaps this link should go on 1/11
rather than 2/11?
Looking back at 1/11, 3/11, 8/11 I noticed not all patches have links to 0day
reports. Are you able to flesh out more info how/what/when such objtool
warnings are observed? Are the warnings ever results of patches earlier
in the series?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-12 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-08 0:09 [PATCH 00/12] Sprinkle more __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:09 ` [PATCH 01/11] init: Mark [arch_call_]rest_init() __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-10 20:02 ` Nick Desaulniers
2023-04-08 0:09 ` [PATCH 02/11] init: Mark start_kernel() __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-12 20:29 ` Nick Desaulniers [this message]
2023-04-12 21:57 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-12 23:26 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:09 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86/head: Mark *_start_kernel() __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:09 ` [PATCH 04/11] btrfs: Mark btrfs_assertfail() __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:09 ` [PATCH 05/11] arm64/cpu: Mark cpu_park_loop() and friends __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:09 ` [PATCH 06/11] cpu: Mark panic_smp_self_stop() __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:10 ` [PATCH 07/11] cpu: Mark nmi_panic_self_stop() __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:10 ` [PATCH 08/11] x86/cpu: Mark {hlt,resume}_play_dead() __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:10 ` [PATCH 09/11] objtool: Include weak functions in global_noreturns check Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:10 ` [PATCH 10/11] scsi: message: fusion: Mark mpt_halt_firmware() __noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
2023-04-08 0:10 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86/hyperv: Mark hv_ghcb_terminate() as noreturn Josh Poimboeuf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZDcUvWuqv2VevITe@google.com \
--to=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=gpiccoli@igalia.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
--cc=mikelley@microsoft.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.