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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:47:22 +0100 From: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org> Cc: Martin Sebor <msebor@....gnu.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] include/linux/module.h: mark init/cleanup_module aliases as __cold On 1/23/19 9:37 AM, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > The upcoming GCC 9 release adds the -Wmissing-attributes warnings > (enabled by -Wall), which trigger for all the init/cleanup_module > aliases in the kernel (defined by the module_init/exit macros), > ending up being very noisy. > > These aliases point to the __init/__exit functions of a module, > which are defined as __cold (among other attributes). However, > the aliases themselves do not have the __cold attribute. > > Since the compiler behaves differently when compiling a __cold > function as well as when compiling paths leading to calls > to __cold functions, the warning is trying to point out > the possibly-forgotten attribute in the alias. > > In order to keep the warning enabled, we choose to silence > the warning by marking the aliases as __cold. This is possible > marking either the extern declaration, the definition, or both. > In order to avoid changing the behavior of callers, we do it > only in the definition of the aliases (since those are not > seen by any other TU). > > Suggested-by: Martin Sebor <msebor@....gnu.org> > Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> > --- > Note that an alternative is using the new copy attribute > introduced by GCC 9 (Martin told me about it, as well as the > new warning). > > What I am concerned about using __copy is that I am not sure > we should be copying all the attributes (even if some are > blacklisted by the copy itself), since: > - We have unknown-to-GCC attributes (e.g. from plugins). > - We wouldn't enjoy the fix for older compilers > (e.g. if the fix had an actual impact). > > So here I took the conservative approach for the moment, > and we can discuss/apply whether another solution is best. > > Jessica: please review what I explain in the commit message. > Do we actually want the __cold attribute in the declaration > as well? If yes, AFAIK, GCC would assume paths that end up > calling the __init/__exit functions are not meant to be taken > (but when we are asked to load modules, that is the expected > path, no?). > > I will put this in the compiler-attributes tree and get > some time in linux-next, unless you want to pick it up! > > include/linux/module.h | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h > index 8fa38d3e7538..c4e805e87628 100644 > --- a/include/linux/module.h > +++ b/include/linux/module.h > @@ -129,13 +129,13 @@ extern void cleanup_module(void); > #define module_init(initfn) \ > static inline initcall_t __maybe_unused __inittest(void) \ > { return initfn; } \ > - int init_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#initfn))); > + int init_module(void) __cold __attribute__((alias(#initfn))); > > /* This is only required if you want to be unloadable. */ > #define module_exit(exitfn) \ > static inline exitcall_t __maybe_unused __exittest(void) \ > { return exitfn; } \ > - void cleanup_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#exitfn))); > + void cleanup_module(void) __cold __attribute__((alias(#exitfn))); > > #endif > > Tested-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists