[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:59:14 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Y Knight <jyknight@...gle.com>,
Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, groeck@...omium.org,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:53:52PM +0000, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> (re-sending as plain text)
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:38 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > There are known-bugs with building a kernel with clang right now (I
> > pointed one out a few days ago about NULL checks being deleted from the
> > clang output for no good reason, which really is scary for obvious
> > reasons).
>
> Is this the thread you are referring to?
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/27/1286
>
> It's definitely something curious that I'll need to sit down and
> investigate more. If there are other known instances, it would be good to
> let me know.
Here is another horrible work around that was needed to get clang to
stop generating invalid code, beaec533fc27 ("llist: clang: introduce
member_address_is_nonnull()") That one caused a lot of odd failures by
users, I wonder what else is lurking in that same code pattern. It's a
hard one to debug...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists