linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kcsan: Prefer '__no

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANpmjNO_V9iOrcAunehJW7XLzzk5pyS6VQEx0pARsjO0pvA6bw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:53:53 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcsan: Prefer '__no_kcsan inline' in test

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 22:48, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:36:33PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > Instead of __no_kcsan_or_inline, prefer '__no_kcsan inline' in test --
> > this is in case we decide to remove __no_kcsan_or_inline.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > This is to prepare eventual removal of __no_kcsan_or_inline, and avoid a
> > series that doesn't apply to anything other than -next (because some
> > bits are in -tip and the test only in -rcu; although this problem might
> > be solved in 2 weeks). This patch is to make sure in case the
> > __kcsan_or_inline series is based on -tip, integration in -next doesn't
> > cause problems.
> >
> > This came up in
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200529185923.GO706495@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
>
> Applied and pushed, thank you!
>
> Please note that unless you would like this pushed into the current
> merge window, it will not be visible in -next until v5.8-rc1 comes out.
> Which sounds like you are aware of already, just want to be sure.  ;-)

Thank you! Yes, that's fine. The test and this patch I'd expect will
go into 5.9 earliest.

Thanks,
-- Marco