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=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 8806DC4338F for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 20:30:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 787E760F93 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 20:30:45 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 787E760F93 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GdqQC4sbzz3cLX for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 06:30:43 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=atODWd2W; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::32a; helo=mail-wm1-x32a.google.com; envelope-from=adobriyan@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=atODWd2W; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GdqPc54fsz2ymP for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 06:30:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id f9-20020a05600c1549b029025b0f5d8c6cso263366wmg.4 for ; Mon, 02 Aug 2021 13:30:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=maODhYRPhde4BMWcrZ6/qErSkGLuv+PbRaEyxJhDMo4=; b=atODWd2WYUDiR/Yh8mbWci3AG5X+a80G2Q4BLWNFefPGVYYcIpMvWLouyf1ZAf6Njz mS8/6gVxf1P3kEdbhzo7tn18wqFDBh+uPpGnO+dFOW5aCzhPaAYz4qoWSgW+pBVd7UwK XmBzgBbBFQR2HMtig2PmSXx3J44FoIK33CmJ0g8q9xzgMGEhiw4QpYmuukC0gfX9KGas F9xCz3IbIYTj8BaM2LsmhXaQIKI6vIIX1ku7hoqSpP1VqjpBZOLfM0ZA8po18OgoyTFY iOkwzV8j6AGKlUnVUx7nwtGpXzaV/d5CzZJaCWTUjcO3Yd5LbZT3SrtadnOT/frT5l/0 S9xQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=maODhYRPhde4BMWcrZ6/qErSkGLuv+PbRaEyxJhDMo4=; b=ZcqS03dCWDRmEHMCitatmUJteeL5K6dddEIWelnHkhpkjLWo114fKTf6wbd9hk5U7n Z1+eXTWKXC6vsh5Gbnt0znSrztsN13HVAuMgUYVJGVeOivQlHoxUK6MyTvs0JqEiKboI mrZ1+KLagonrLGnj/1/RW1Z6sOUC8D9kz0m1yx/Q4g59eRsRIsLaoOkig5umqUhroZr4 yzpDqEXj/VshTF1/UOsEKmO0f13sHhBJRZkELKUS9xszG01sqh5hSDSZzzLT1RZgaoYt 7As3SNZv2MebeKQYhU/jhO2hcNeEFnvtTVF6CfCYrrUo9W/15GaxjKqexl2+s+9Le9N7 2Piw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530w3jGAYPlu/ZWotvsLVlHt3L8EK1NKxlEs7XmhGQH2yP8TZsMn iSOMHCLN4CrmlkNGN1GGcw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy3nJeqk03qeWAxAMHHcYXnIQ/OnlFxxyu/cuy0wKqXLfdqCXGwTCnG87w460nh7BOq4V8nFA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3041:: with SMTP id n1mr654363wmh.19.1627936202860; Mon, 02 Aug 2021 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([46.53.249.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z20sm10875371wmi.36.2021.08.02.13.30.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 02 Aug 2021 13:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 23:30:00 +0300 From: Alexey Dobriyan To: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] isystem: delete global -isystem compile option Message-ID: References: <20210801201336.2224111-1-adobriyan@gmail.com> <20210801201336.2224111-3-adobriyan@gmail.com> <20210801213247.GM1583@gate.crashing.org> <20210802164747.GN1583@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210802164747.GN1583@gate.crashing.org> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , masahiroy@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 11:47:47AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 09:42:45AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 04:32:47PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 01, 2021 at 11:13:36PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > > In theory, it enables "leakage" of userspace headers into kernel which > > > > may present licensing problem. > > > > > > > -NOSTDINC_FLAGS += -nostdinc -isystem $(shell $(CC) -print-file-name=include) > > > > +NOSTDINC_FLAGS += -nostdinc > > > > > > This is removing the compiler's own include files. These are required > > > for all kinds of basic features, and required to be compliant to the C > > > standard at all. > > > > No they are not required. > > This is false, they *are* required, whenever you want to use these > features. If you do not include the required headers you get undefined > behaviour. > > > Kernel uses its own bool, uintptr_t and > > static_assert, memset(), CHAR_BIT. > > Yes, and it occasionally gets it wrong. Great fun. See c46bbf5d2def > for the latest episode in this saga. (Yes I know this is uapi so maybe > not the best example here, but it isn't like the kernel gets such things > wrong so often these days ;-) ) > > The kernel *cannot* make up its own types for this. It has to use the > types it is required to use (by C, by the ABIs, etc.) So why > reimplement this? Yes, it can. gcc headers have stuff like this: #define __PTRDIFF_TYPE__ long int #define __SIZE_TYPE__ long unsigned int If gcc can defined standard types, kernel can too. > > noreturn, alignas newest C standard > > are next. > > What is wrong with and ? These two are actually quite nice. Have you seen ? Loads of macrology crap. Kernel can ship nicer one. > > This version changelog didn't mention but kernel would use > > -ffreestanding too if not other problems with the flag. > > It is still true for freestanding C implementations, you just get a > severely reduced standard library, > > > > These are not "userspace headers", that is what > > > -nostdinc takes care of already. > > > > They are userspace headers in the sense they are external to the project > > just like userspace programs are external to the kernel. > > So you are going to rewrite all of the rest of GCC inside the kernel > project as well? What an argument. "the rest of GCC" is already there except for stdarg.h. > > > In the case of GCC all these headers are GPL-with-runtime-exception, so > > > claiming this can cause licensing problems is fearmongering. > > > > I agree licensing problem doesn't really exist. > > It would take gcc drop-in replacement with authors insane enough to not > > license standard headers properly. > > There does still not exist a drop-in replacement for GCC, not if you > look closely and/or rely on details (like the kernel does). Some of the > differences are hidden by "linux/compiler-*.h", but hardly all. > > > > I strongly advise against doing this. > > > > Kernel chose to be self-contained. > > That is largely historical, imo. Nowadays this is less necessary. I kind of agree as in kernel should use int8_t and stuff because they are standard. Also, -isystem removal disables and which is desireable. > Also, the kernel chose to *do* use the compiler include files. It is > you who wants to abolish that here. > > > -isystem removal makes sense then. > > -nostdinc -isystem $(shell $(CC) -print-file-name=include) makes sense > for that: you do indeed not want the userspace headers. Maiming the > compiler (by removing some of its functional parts, namely, its generic > headers) does not make sense. > > > It will be used for intrinsics where necessary. > > Like, everywhere. No, where necessary. Patch demostrates there are only a few places which want -isystem back.