linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/process: Silence KASAN warnings in get

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPAsAGxUAhXfHWjL_vVjpGnEtvj-=u+9T4xvQxH+tEXHRzu_1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 21:48:38 +0300
From:	Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	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>,
	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()

2015-10-07 19:27 GMT+03:00 Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:54:42AM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>> On 10/06/2015 09:11 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >
>> > But what's wrong with the GCC attribute mechanism?  Surely GCC ought
>> > to be able to generate the code, at least in the simple cases, and the
>> > attribute already exists.  The attribute and READ_ONCE_NOCHECK seem
>> > like the least messy in the C code.
>>
>> The problem with 'no_sanitize_address' attribute is incompatibility with inlining.
>> GCC can't inline function with that attribute into function without it.
>> And the contrary is also true - GCC can't inline function without attribute into function with such attribute.
>>
>> Failure to inline always_inline function leads to build failure.
>
> So just don't do that?  Don't set the attribute on functions marked inline.
> Where do you see this anyways?

Besides that we can't set the attribute on functions that *call*
inline functions.
So we can't set it on get_wchan() because it calls __read_once_size().



>
> -Andi
--
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/