Subject: Re: KASAN_INLINE && patchable-function-entry

From: Torsten Duwe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:27:54 +0100

Hi Mark!

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:36:32 +0000
Mark Rutland <[email-masked]> wrote:
[...]
> Was it intended that -fpatachable-function-entry behaved differently
> from -pg in this regard?

No way! I tried to model it as closely as possible along the established
instrumentation mechanism(s).

> Is this likely to be problematic for other users?

I don't think "likely" is the right word here. "rare" would be even
worse. One corner case is more than enough.

> Are there other implicitly-generated functions we need to look out for
> here, for which this would be a problem?
> 
> It looks like this also applies to __attribute__((naked)) on ARM,

IMHO gcc should instrument neither implicitly-generated nor naked
functions in this way. Anybody with reasonable objections please speak
up now.

I'd call it a gcc bug; but it may take a few days...

	Torsten

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel