linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/46] static_call, lto: Mark func_a() as __visible_on

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]

Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:54:16 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Martin Liska <mliska@...e.cz>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/46] static_call, lto: Mark func_a() as __visible_on_lto

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:43:08PM +0100, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:

> -static int func_a(int x)
> +__visible_on_lto int sc_func_a(int x)

>  } static_call_data [] __initdata = {
>        { NULL,   2, 3 },
>        { func_b, 2, 4 },
> -      { func_a, 2, 3 }
> +      { sc_func_a, 2, 3 }
>  };

I must say I really hate this. Also, with address taken, it still
eliminiates it?

This whole GCC-LTO sounds sub-par.