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: <CAHk-=wi80NGPppGmBpc5zuGRAsv4_7qsDu7ehW515J2FJoezAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Sep 2021 14:08:58 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>
Cc:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        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 Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 1:14 PM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> the only guaranteed APIs are
> those provided by the headers (x86intrin.h/*mmintrin.h etc. on x86,
> arm_{neon,sve}.h etc. on arm*, ...)

You guys realize we don't use those, do you?

And you don't seem to realize that you are actively arguing *AGAINST*
what you think you argue for.

That "immintrin.h" file, for example, is simply not usable for the
kernel. I just checked.

Why? Because it ends up doing exactly all those things that MUST NOT
be done for the kernel.

   In file included from
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/11/include/xmmintrin.h:34,
                    from
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/11/include/immintrin.h:31,
                    from t.c:1:
   /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/11/include/mm_malloc.h:27:10:
fatal error: stdlib.h: No such file or directory
      27 | #include <stdlib.h>
         |          ^~~~~~~~~~

Oops.

And no, it doesn't work trying to include some specific avx2intrin.h
file either:

   /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/11/include/avx2intrin.h:25:3:
error: #error "Never use <avx2intrin.h> directly; include
<immintrin.h> instead."
      25 | # error "Never use <avx2intrin.h> directly; include
<immintrin.h> instead."
         |   ^~~~~

Very similar things happens if you try to use that <stdint.h> file
that somebody mentioned earlier.

Guys, you don't understand how limited the kernel header files are - on purpose.

You also don't seem to realize how hard it is to separate out the
user-land crap that we really cannot use, and must not use.

And you think that we're making it harder for compiler people, but
that's not at all the case.

You really don't want to deal with us saying "you can't do that" when
you do something that is

Yes, <stdarg.h> has historically worked for us, and it's pretty much
the only one.

All your arguments about how people need to use the standard headers
are basically worthless, because you have never actually tried to use
them in a standalone project, have you?

So just face it - stdarg.h is special.

And it's not clear that there's any reason why the kernel should
include the one that comes with the compiler, when the kernel cannot
use any of the other header files that come with the compiler anyway.

And ALL of your arguments about how we must use compiler header files
are COMPLETE GARBAGE, because you didn't even look at them, did you?

See?

So stop making arguments out of ignorance. Because that's literally
what you are doing. You've never tried to make those header files
standalone, and you don't have any idea of how nasty it would be if
you were forced to.

               Linus