[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230412165652.umuiemo7ifnhr2nz@treble>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:56:52 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the block tree
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:44:11AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/12/23 10:35 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 4/12/23 10:25?AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 01:44:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:14:00PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Peter, what do you think, should we make track uaccess state across
> >>>> function boundaries?
> >>>
> >>> So IIRC the goal was to explicitly dis-allow that. You want minimal code
> >>> executed with STAC and hence disallow calling stuff.
> >>
> >> I guess I was wondering if we could make an exception for calls to
> >> static IPA-optimized functions, so we wouldn't have to scramble to "fix"
> >> compiler optimizations.
> >>
> >> But for now, yeah let's just keep it simple.
> >>
> >> Jens, can you confirm this works? I added __noclone instead of removing
> >> static.
> >
> > Yep, works for me.
>
> Want me to slap that patch on top of the branch that has the commit
> that causes it?
Yes, please. Thanks!
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists