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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBEEC432C0 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1FC2070E for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:28:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="neEg2nL9" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2B1FC2070E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=zUrToOpWArTFSDQ+T0Yq/HKig2idT+21G20nNOoThfA=; b=neEg2nL9vvtXol mLuxLzqXbOpEkN4nSoNBy6usUvNmZOA/rRMjPsvU5AXUxMl1zGSpdl+XjTjnvdma2JCh9yAWpynqC jlldzGYOLwo3UCquFTWiNPp0U9M1+9JCh2v6clp9H4dwI8VyVuTpLMCxh9AmvJGYoUnOOR4MW0DT9 3MjrzOuFRnW3j+dHnJ5beEe17Wc75CdcGDHnhJAmzB3GVX0AxHUzbzjNmCyvaNcJYX/jUEXb2IoPn CcGchSvgHugkvy7vTTMCdog06rxi6d1vaIHGxwJY0y2dULsnxNNjeoW8N2FiYaT7Hvj1hoE0s1hdJ b9floBaYkU5vFcz5ix4Q==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iY5Ed-0002AO-JV; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:28:15 +0000 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15] helo=mx1.suse.de) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iY5Ea-00029h-4E for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:28:13 +0000 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5628FB2DF; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:27:54 +0100 From: Torsten Duwe To: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: KASAN_INLINE && patchable-function-entry Message-ID: <20191122102754.5a007f66@blackhole> In-Reply-To: <20191121183630.GA3668@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20191121183630.GA3668@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> Organization: Suse Linux GmbH X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20191122_012812_314249_8FA98F7B X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.72 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Mark! On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:36:32 +0000 Mark Rutland wrote: [...] > Was it intended that -fpatachable-function-entry behaved differently > from -pg in this regard? No way! I tried to model it as closely as possible along the established instrumentation mechanism(s). > Is this likely to be problematic for other users? I don't think "likely" is the right word here. "rare" would be even worse. One corner case is more than enough. > Are there other implicitly-generated functions we need to look out for > here, for which this would be a problem? > > It looks like this also applies to __attribute__((naked)) on ARM, IMHO gcc should instrument neither implicitly-generated nor naked functions in this way. Anybody with reasonable objections please speak up now. I'd call it a gcc bug; but it may take a few days... Torsten _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel