[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200513123243.GO2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:32:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:48:41PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> Disabling most instrumentation for arch/x86 is reasonable. Also fine
> with the __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE changes (your improved
> compiler-friendlier version).
>
> We likely can't have both: still instrument __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE
> (as Will suggested) *and* avoid double-instrumentation in arch_atomic.
> If most use-cases of __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE are likely to use
> data_race() or KCSAN_SANITIZE := n anyway, I'd say it's reasonable for
> now.
Right, if/when people want sanitize crud enabled for x86 I need
something that:
- can mark a function 'no_sanitize' and all code that gets inlined into
that function must automagically also not get sanitized. ie. make
inline work like macros (again).
And optionally:
- can mark a function explicitly 'sanitize', and only when an explicit
sanitize and no_sanitize mix in inlining give the current
incompatible attribute splat.
That way we can have the noinstr function attribute imply no_sanitize
and frob the DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() macros to use (a new) sanitize_or_inline
helper instead of __always_inline for __##func().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists