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, 21 Nov 2019 12:37:11 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Nov 20 (kcsan + objtool)
Message-ID: <20191121183711.w2qnysscwnbxocc4@treble>
References: <20191120203434.2a0727b3@canb.auug.org.au>
 <58708908-84a0-0a81-a836-ad97e33dbb62@infradead.org>
 <CANpmjNOHTyTRCeo3oxEPTY__TCjAQ8nMvcqDSZ6Otfs7vVESSA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNOHTyTRCeo3oxEPTY__TCjAQ8nMvcqDSZ6Otfs7vVESSA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 08:48:41PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 17:18, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/20/19 1:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Changes since 20191119:
> > >
> >
> > on x86_64:
> >
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: kcsan_found_watchpoint()+0xa: ca=
ll to kcsan_is_enabled() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_read1()+0x13: call to fin=
d_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_write1()+0x10: call to fi=
nd_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_read2()+0x13: call to fin=
d_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_write2()+0x10: call to fi=
nd_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_read4()+0x13: call to fin=
d_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_write4()+0x10: call to fi=
nd_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_read8()+0x13: call to fin=
d_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_write8()+0x10: call to fi=
nd_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_read16()+0x13: call to fi=
nd_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_write16()+0x10: call to f=
ind_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_read_range()+0x13: call t=
o find_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> > kernel/kcsan/core.o: warning: objtool: __tsan_write_range()+0x10: call =
to find_watchpoint() with UACCESS enabled
> >
> > kernel/trace/trace_branch.o: warning: objtool: ftrace_likely_update()+0=
x361: call to __stack_chk_fail() with UACCESS enabled
> >
> >
> > Full randconfig file is attached.
>=20
> Thanks.
>=20
> This is due to CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=3Dy. It seems the compiler
> decides to not even inline small static inline functions. I tried to
> make this go away by adding __always_inline, but then we're also left
> with atomic64_try_cmpxchg which never gets inlined.
>=20
> The optimized build simply inlines the small static inline functions.
> We certainly do not want to add more functions to the objtool
> whitelist, especially those that are private to KCSAN.
>=20
> We could fix it by either:
>=20
> 1. Adding __always_inline to every function used by the KCSAN runtime
> outside user_access_save + also fix atomic64_try_cmpxchg
> (atomic-instrumented.h).
>=20
> 2. Just not compile KCSAN with -Os, i.e. have the Makefile strip -Os
> and replace it with -O2 for kcsan/core.c. #2 is the simpler option,
> and would probably make KCSAN more effective even with -Os. Although
> it might violate the assumption of whoever decided they want both
> CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE and KCSAN. It might also mean that future
> compilers that have a new inlining algorithm will have the same
> problem.
>=20
> What do people think is better?

I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, and probably won't be able
to do so until at least Monday...

Adding PeterZ who's the objtool uaccess expert.

--=20
Josh