linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the block tree

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: <a70e8da4-167a-3730-be5f-01429b1f1df4@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:57:27 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
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 4/12/23 10:56?AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 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!

Done!

-- 
Jens Axboe