linux-kernel - Re: objtool warnings for kernel/trace/trace_selftest

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

Message-ID: <20181217173644.391c2070@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 17 Dec 2018 17:36:44 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: objtool warnings for kernel/trace/trace_selftest_dynamic.o

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:31:26 -0600
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 08:29:38PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:16:38PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >   
> > > > Yes LTO causes the to be treated like static functions.
> > > > 
> > > > I guess noclone is unlikely to be really needed here because these
> > > > functions are unlikely to be cloned.
> > > > 
> > > > So as a workaround it could be removed.
> > > > 
> > > > But note we have other noclone functions in the tree (like in KVM)
> > > > which actually need it.  
> > > 
> > > How about we just use the __used attribute then?  It seems to have the
> > > same result of preventing IPA optimizations (without the weird side
> > > effect of missing frame pointers).  
> > 
> > AFAIK we don't have any in-tree LTO, so it can all go in the bin.
> > 
> > When/if we get the LTO trainwreck sorted -- which very much includes
> > getting that memory-order-consume fixed -- we can revisit all that.  
> 
> Ok, then if there are no objections I'll just send a revert of:
> 
>   dd3dad0d716d ("ftrace: Mark function tracer test functions noinline/noclone")
> 

Should it be reverted, or just remove the noclone, and keep the
noinline?

-- Steve