linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL v2] Kbuild updates for v5.15-rc1

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: <3b461878-a4a0-2f84-e177-9daf8fe285e7@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 16:04:50 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] Kbuild updates for v5.15-rc1

On 9/3/2021 3:53 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 4:31 
PM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> I fixed the warnings observed in the previous PR.
> 
> Ok, let's try it again.
> 
>>   - Add <linux/stdarg.h> to the kernel source instead of borrowing
>>     <stdarg.h> from the compiler.
> 
> So I certainly agree with the reasoning, but this worries me a bit.
> 
> stdarg is truly intimately an internal compiler file, in ways that
> stddef (to pick another example) isn't.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, offsetof() is "kind of compiler internal", and we end up
> using __compiler_offsetof(), but in the absence of that we *can* just
> do it by hand. So offsetof() really is one of those things where we
> can just do our own version if some compiler is being difficult.
> 
> But va_start and friends absolutely *must* match the exact compiler version.
> 
> It does look like both gcc and clang have just standardized on using
> __builtin_xyz for all the different stdarg things, and so I approve of
> what that <linux/stdarg.h> ended up looking like.
> 
> But at the same time, it does make me go "ok, this is a big new
> assumption that we've consciously avoided for a long time".
> 
> Nick is already on the cc here for other reasons, but let's add the
> clang-built list and Nathan explicitly. Because this basically
> codifies that
> 
>      typedef __builtin_va_list va_list;
>      #define va_start(v, l)  __builtin_va_start(v, l)
>      #define va_end(v)       __builtin_va_end(v)
>      #define va_arg(v, T)    __builtin_va_arg(v, T)
>      #define va_copy(d, s)   __builtin_va_copy(d, s)
> 
> being the way all the supported compilers work.
> 
> Did people talk to any gcc maintainers too? We don't have the same
> kind of "gcc kernel people" list or contacts. The above builtins have
> been the case for a long long time for gcc, so I don't think it's
> wrong or likely to change, but I think it would be a good thing to
> just make compiler people aware of how we're now relying on that
> explicitly.

We set up the linux-toolchains mailing list after Plumbers 2020 to have 
a common place that kernel developers can bring issues and discussion to 
both clang and GCC folks. I am not sure who exactly from the GCC world 
is subscribed but I have added it now to see.

> (Side note: Linux using the compiler <stdarg.h> goes so far back that
> it very much predates all those nice builtins. I still have memories
> of <stdarg.h> being a collection of nasty per-architecture messes back
> in the bad old days. So I'm actually happy we can do this now, but
> there most definitely was a time when we really really had to use the
> compiler-provided stdarg.h).

Cheers,
Nathan