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:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:18:58 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jinyuqi@huawei.com,
        kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, edumazet@google.com,
        guoyang2@huawei.com, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: optimize cmpxchg in ip_idents_reserve
Message-ID: <20200120081858.GI14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200116.042722.153124126288244814.davem@davemloft.net>
 <930faaff-4d18-452d-2e44-ef05b65dc858@gmail.com>
 <1b3aaddf-22f5-1846-90f1-42e68583c1e4@gmail.com>
 <430496fc-9f26-8cb4-91d8-505fda9af230@hisilicon.com>
 <20200117123253.GC14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <7e6c6202-24bb-a532-adde-d53dd6fb14c3@gmail.com>
 <20200117180324.GA2623847@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <94573cea-a833-9b48-6581-8cc5cdd19b89@gmail.com>
 <20200117183800.GA2649345@rani.riverdale.lan>
 <45224c36-9941-aae5-aca4-e2c8e3723355@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <45224c36-9941-aae5-aca4-e2c8e3723355@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:48:19AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/17/20 10:38 AM, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:16:45AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> Wasńt it the case back in 2016 already for linux-4.8 ?
> >>
> >> What will prevent someone to send another report to netdev/lkml ?
> >>
> >>  -fno-strict-overflow support is not a prereq for CONFIG_UBSAN.
> >>
> >> Fact that we kept in lib/ubsan.c and lib/test_ubsan.c code for 
> >> test_ubsan_add_overflow() and test_ubsan_sub_overflow() is disturbing.
> >>
> > 
> > No, it was bumped in 2018 in commit cafa0010cd51 ("Raise the minimum
> > required gcc version to 4.6"). That raised it from 3.2 -> 4.6.
> > 
> 
> This seems good to me, for gcc at least.
> 
> Maybe it is time to enfore -fno-strict-overflow in KBUILD_CFLAGS 
> instead of making it conditional.

IIRC there was a bug in UBSAN vs -fwrapv/-fno-strict-overflow that was
only fixed in gcc-8 or 9 or so.

So while the -fwrapv/-fno-strict-overflow flag has been correctly
supported since like forever, UBSAN was buggy until quite recent when
used in conjustion with that flag.