[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YVxjH2AtjvB8BDMD@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 16:37:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rcu/kcsan 23/23] objtool, kcsan: Remove memory barrier
instrumentation from noinstr
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 12:59:05PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> Teach objtool to turn instrumentation required for memory barrier
> modeling into nops in noinstr text.
>
> The __tsan_func_entry/exit calls are still emitted by compilers even
> with the __no_sanitize_thread attribute. The memory barrier
> instrumentation will be inserted explicitly (without compiler help), and
> thus needs to also explicitly be removed.
How is arm64 and others using kernel/entry + noinstr going to fix this?
ISTR they fully rely on the compilers not emitting instrumentation,
since they don't have objtool to fix up stray issues like this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists