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=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 72490C432C0 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:28:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4932070E for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:28:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726752AbfKVJ2K (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2019 04:28:10 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42546 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726417AbfKVJ2J (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2019 04:28:09 -0500 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 Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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