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:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 20:17:06 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org,
        bristot@redhat.com, jbaron@akamai.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com, hpa@zytor.com, luto@kernel.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/ftrace: Use text_poke()
Message-ID: <20200129021619.cvbsvmag2v4tyjek@treble>
References: <20200120165039.6hohicj5o52gdghu@treble>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.2001210922060.6036@pobox.suse.cz>
 <20200121161045.dhihqibnpyrk2lsu@treble>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.2001221052331.15957@pobox.suse.cz>
 <20200122214239.ivnebi7hiabi5tbs@treble>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.2001281014280.14030@pobox.suse.cz>
 <20200128150014.juaxfgivneiv6lje@treble>
 <20200128154046.trkpkdaz7qeovhii@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20200128170254.igb72ib5n7lvn3ds@treble>
 <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2001290141140.31058@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2001290141140.31058@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 01:46:55AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > > Anyway, I think that we might make your life easier with using the 
> > > proposed -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn.
> > 
> > Maybe.  Though if I understand correctly, this doesn't help for any of 
> > the new warnings because they're for static functions, and this only 
> > warns about global functions.
> 
> Could you please provide a pointer where those have been 
> reported/analyzed?
> 
> For the cases I've seen so far, it has always been gcc deciding under 
> certain circumstances not to propagate __attribute__((__noreturn__)) from 
> callee to caller even in the cases when caller unconditionally called 
> callee.
> 
> AFAIU, the behavior is (and always will) be dependent on the state of gcc 
> optimizations, and therefore I don't see any other way than adding 
> __noreturn anotation transitively everywhere in order to silence objtool.
> 
> So those cases have to be fixed anyway.
> 
> What are the other cases please? Either I have completely missed those, or 
> they haven't been mentioned in this thread.

For example, see:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jpoimboe/linux.git/commit/?h=objtool-fixes&id=6265238af90b395a1e5e5032a41f012a552d8a9e

Many of those callees are static noreturns, for which we've *never*
needed annotations.  Disabling -fipa-pure-const has apparently changed
that.

-Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn doesn't seem to suggest annotations for
static functions, probably because most reasonable setups use -O2 which
allows GCC to detect them.

-- 
Josh