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 21:40:21 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.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 18/20] objtool: Add UACCESS validation
Message-ID: <20190307204021.GE32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190307114511.870090179@infradead.org>
 <20190307115200.697533978@infradead.org>
 <CAHk-=wgKDSSoV5WvO018hoPPSHO=TQ3wwnfOtCpaENceBe0Z6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190307174135.GJ32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=wgGZWXQj-J2xo0DY7150VrXOSqoD5Dj1_LGYaotqA6Z-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190307184813.GL32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190307202319.GD32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190307202319.GD32534@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:23:19PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 07:48:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Another thing I need to look at is why objtool only found memset_orig
> > (from __memset) but not memset_erms, which if I read the code right, is
> > a possible alternative there.
> 
> Turns out we only look for sibling calls in the original instruction
> stream, not in any alternatives; which in general seems like a fair
> enough assumption.

And while I'm looking at memset_64.S, why are memset_erms and
memset_orig global functions? At the very least they should be local,
and ideally not even functions.