[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wj6HmDetTDhNNUNcAXZzmCv==oHk22_kVW4znfO-HuMnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 11:50:14 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+b7c3ba8cdc2f6cf83c21@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tty: tty_io: remove hung_up_tty_fops
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 at 03:20, Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>
> If we keep the current model, WRITE_ONCE() is not sufficient.
>
> My understanding is that KCSAN's report like
I find it obnoxious that these are NOT REAL PROBLEMS.
It's KCSAN that is broken and doesn't allow us to just tell it to
sanely ignore things.
I don't want to add stupid and pointless annotations for a broken tooling.
Can you instead just ask the KCSAN people to have some mode where we
can annotate a pointer as a "use one or the other", and just shut that
thing up that way?
Because no, we're not adding some idiotic "f_op()" wrapper just to
shut KCSAN up about a non-issue.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists