linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcov: re-fix clang-11+ support

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKwvOdnSRsUj9dvKP_1Dd9+WwLJwaK0mC-T9mL+jsQvRfwLZmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:28:21 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
        Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...cinc.com>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gcov: re-fix clang-11+ support

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 2:21 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed,  7 Apr 2021 11:54:55 -0700 Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > LLVM changed the expected function signature for
> > llvm_gcda_emit_function() in the clang-11 release.  Users of clang-11 or
> > newer may have noticed their kernels producing invalid coverage
> > information:
> >
> > $ llvm-cov gcov -a -c -u -f -b <input>.gcda -- gcno=<input>.gcno
> > 1 <func>: checksum mismatch, \
> >   (<lineno chksum A>, <cfg chksum B>) != (<lineno chksum A>, <cfg chksum C>)
> > 2 Invalid .gcda File!
> > ...
> >
> > Fix up the function signatures so calling this function interprets its
> > parameters correctly and computes the correct cfg checksum. In
> > particular, in clang-11, the additional checksum is no longer optional.
>
> Which tree is this against?  I'm seeing quite a lot of rejects against
> Linus's current.

Today's linux-next; the only recent changes to this single source file
since my last patches were:

commit b3c4e66c908b ("gcov: combine common code")
commit 17d0508a080d ("gcov: use kvmalloc()")

both have your sign off, so I assume those are in your tree?

-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers