[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200617155517.GB576905@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 17:55:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v3 1/2] kcov: Make runtime functions
noinstr-compatible
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 05:19:59PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > Does GCC (8, as per the new KASAN thing) have that
> > __builtin_memcpy_inline() ?
>
> No, sadly it doesn't. Only Clang 11. :-/
>
> But using a call to __memcpy() somehow breaks with Clang+KCSAN. Yet,
> it's not the memcpy that BUGs, but once again check_preemption_disabled
> (which is noinstr!). Just adding calls anywhere here seems to results in
> unpredictable behaviour. Are we running out of stack space?
Very likely, bad_iret is running on that entry_stack you found, and as
you found, it is puny.
Andy wanted to make it a full page a while ago, so I suppose the
question is do we do that now?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists