[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151006072655.GB10672@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 09:26:55 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Wolfram Gloger <wmglo@...t.med.uni-muenchen.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/process: Silence KASAN warnings in get_wchan()
* Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 07:39 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> But, I think I have the solution.
> >> We could have some blacklist - list of function names which we should be ignored.
> >> In kasan_report() we could resolve return address to function name and compare it with name in list.
> >> If name in list -> ignore report.
> >
> > I think annotating statements is cleaner than functions, even if it
> > is more code. Much better documentation
> >
>
> I agree with that, that's why I suggested to add READ_ONCE_NOCHECK():
> READ_ONCE_NOCHECK()
> {
> kasan_disable_current();
> READ_ONCE();
> kasan_enable_current();
> }
>
> Anywone objects?
Sounds good to me! As long as it's hidden from plain .c files I'm a happy camper.
This should probably also be faster for KASAN than triggering a warning and having
to parse a blacklist, right?
> > If disabling with an attribute doesn't work, you could put it into a special
> > section with __attribute__((section ...)) and check the start/end symbol
> > before reporting. That's how kprobes solves similar issues. It also has the
> > advantage that it stops inlining.
>
> Yes, it might be better. Although, because of broken -fconserve-stack, this may
> not work in some cases - https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63533
> Function splitter may split original function into two parts and it always puts
> one split part in default .text section.
We do a _ton_ of such section tricks in the kernel (all of exception handling is
based on that) - if that's broken by -fconserve-stack then the kernel is broken
much more widely.
So unless KASAN wants to do something special here you can rely on sections just
fine.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists