[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202003201131.9B688BC@keescook>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 11:35:37 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 18 (objtool)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 09:26:13AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:45:50PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:33:31PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > > > Actually I suspect it's the __builtin_unreachable() annotation which is
> > > > making UBSAN add the __builtin_trap()... because I don't see any double
> > > > UD2s for WARNs.
>
> > Actually, removing __builtin_unreachable() *does* make the extra UD2 go
> > away -- I forgot I had some silly debug code.
>
> LOL, check this:
>
> "Built-in Function: void __builtin_unreachable (void)
>
> If control flow reaches the point of the __builtin_unreachable, the
> program is undefined. It is useful in situations where the compiler
> cannot deduce the unreachability of the code. "
>
> Which, I bet, is what makes UBSAN insert that __builtin_trap().
>
> What a friggin mess :/
What I'd like is to be able to specify to UBSAN what function to call
for the trap. I'd prefer to specify a well-defined exception handler,
but at present, UBSAN just inserts __builtin_trap().
Can't objtool be told to ignore a ud2 that lacks an execution path to it?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists