linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] tracing: Remove conditional locking from __DO

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: <Z0Yz6xffDjL6m_KZ@google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:47:39 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Jordan Rife <jrife@...gle.com>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] tracing: Remove conditional locking from
 __DO_TRACE()

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 10:13:43AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 00:46, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Using that (old) form results in:
> >
> >     error: control reaches end of non-void function [-Werror=return-type]
> 
> Ahh. Annoying, but yeah.
> 
> > Except of course, now we get that dangling-else warning, there is no
> > winning this :-/
> 
> Well, was there any actual problem with the "jump backwards" version?
> Przemek implied some problem, but ..

No, it was based on my feedback with "jump backwards" looking confusing
to me.  But if it gets rid of a warning then we should use it instead.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry