Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 2019 11:17:09 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] objtool: UACCESS validation v3
Message-ID: <20190307171709.dap5hfeof4yo3nsc@treble>
References: <20190307114511.870090179@infradead.org>
 <20190307120317.GD32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190307125526.GB32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190307131312.GC32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190307164705.qbu4ytdfdmsighas@treble>
 <CAHk-=wgfvwn1L7BduXA02rZdDnKGb8ebzm4C--QcfVF+gjHAvQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgfvwn1L7BduXA02rZdDnKGb8ebzm4C--QcfVF+gjHAvQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:00:49AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:47 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > This "fixes" it, and also seems to help -Os make much code:
> 
> Yeah, considering that this __trace_if() macro from hell is doing an
> 'if()' on the result of that inner thing, it makes sense to *not*  use
> that "looks simpler and shorter" array sequence, but depend on the
> compiler then noticing that the conditionals are the same and joining
> the two branches together.
> 
> The compiler has to do much more work to either generate the actual
> dynamic array thing, or notice that the _index_ of the array matches
> the _conditional_ on the branch, and undo that thing.

Yeah, agreed.  Now it doesn't have to do the funky xor thing to convert
the conditional to an int.

> But that macro really is the macro from hell regardless.
> 
> Do people really use CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES?

IIRC, Steven runs it once a year or so...

-- 
Josh