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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190830034304.24259-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
 <f5c221f5749e5768c9f0d909175a14910d349456.camel@suse.de> <CAKwvOdk=tr5nqq1CdZnUvRskaVqsUCP0SEciSGonzY5ayXsMXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiTy7hrA=LkmApBE9PQtri8qYsSOrf2zbms_crfjgR=Hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190930112636.vx2qxo4hdysvxibl@willie-the-truck> <CAK7LNASQZ82KSOrQW7+Wq1vFDCg2__maBEAPMLqUDqZMLuj1rA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190930121803.n34i63scet2ec7ll@willie-the-truck> <CAKwvOdnqn=0LndrX+mUrtSAQqoT1JWRMOJCA5t3e=S=T7zkcCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72kbZVB4vdyQonMQzuRHdh=BnD6F=sv5NQsFey5_xAB-Zg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72kbZVB4vdyQonMQzuRHdh=BnD6F=sv5NQsFey5_xAB-Zg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Sep 2019 15:34:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdm_GoUeDjAYXTqCTuvdL+9vwvfeofhv06MLMYVA75CnEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler: enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING forcibly
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@gmx.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:08 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:50 PM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > So __attribute__((always_inline)) doesn't guarantee that code will be
> > inlined.  [...] inline and __attribute__((always_inline))
> > are a heuristic laden mess and should not be relied upon.
>
> Small note: in GCC, __attribute__((always_inline)) is documented as
> actually guaranteeing to either inline or error otherwise (although
> see the remark for indirect calls):
>
>     "Failure to inline such a function is diagnosed as an error. Note

Not an error, but a warning at least: https://godbolt.org/z/_V5im1.

That's interesting, so it has multiple semantics, because it's also
documented to inline even when no optimizations are specified.  So
when someone uses __attribute__((always_inline)) without a comment,
it's not clear whether they mean for there to be a warning when this
is not inlined, or for it to be inlined at -O0 (guess not for the
kernel), or both.  If the kernel wants to enforce the former, why not
set `-Werror=attributes`?  Maybe that warning is too broad?  Seems
like a recipe for subtly broken code found at runtime, when we'd
rather have stronger compile time guarantees.

> that if such a function is called indirectly the compiler may or may
> not inline it depending on optimization level and a failure to inline
> an indirect call may or may not be diagnosed."
>
> As for LLVM/Clang, no idea, since it does not say anything about it in
> the docs -- but from what you say, it is a weaker guarantee.

Filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43517
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers