[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ymxy/CU+tZhQ9UtN@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 01:21:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 14/21] treewide: static_call: Pass call arguments to
the macro
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 01:36:37PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Include the function arguments in the static call macro to make it
> possible to add a wrapper for the call. This is needed with
> CONFIG_CFI_CLANG to disable indirect call checking for static calls
> that are patched into direct calls at runtime.
>
> Users of static_call were updated using the following Coccinelle
> script and manually adjusted to preserve coding style:
>
> @@
> expression name;
> expression list args;
> identifier static_call =~ "^static_call(_mod|_cond)?$";
> @@
>
> - static_call(name)(args)
> + static_call(name, args)
Urgh, sadness.. I worked so hard to get away from that terrible syntax.
Can you explain why this is needed? I don't think there are any indirect
calls to get confused about. That is, if you have STATIC_CALL_INLINE
then the compiler should be emitting direct calls to the trampoline.
At no point will there be an indirect call.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists