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, 26 Mar 2020 19:28:23 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     x86 <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "mhiramat@kernel.org" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        "bristot@redhat.com" <bristot@redhat.com>,
        "jbaron@akamai.com" <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        tglx <tglx@linutronix.de>, "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        "jpoimboe@redhat.com" <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v3 06/17] static_call: Add basic static call
 infrastructure
Message-ID: <20200326182823.GB2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200324135603.483964896@infradead.org>
 <20200324142245.632535759@infradead.org>
 <12A30BA0-18DA-4748-B82F-6008179CC88C@vmware.com>
 <20200326170128.GQ20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <9D47A4CA-39AD-4408-879B-677BE9D891B7@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9D47A4CA-39AD-4408-879B-677BE9D891B7@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 06:09:07PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:

> I think that the kernel underutilizes the pure attribute in general.
> Building it with "-Wsuggest-attribute=pure” results in many warnings.
> Function pointers such kvm_x86_ops.get_XXX() could have been candidates to
> use the “pure” attribute.
> 
> The syntax is what you would expect:
> 
>   static void __attribute__((pure))(*ptr)(void);
> 

Well, I didn't in fact expect that, because an attribute is not a
type qualifier.

> However, you have a point, gcc does not appear to respect “pure” for
> function pointers and emits a warning it is ignored. GCC apparently only
> respects “const”. In contrast clang appears to respect the pure attribute
> for function pointers.

Still, we can probably make it happen for static_call(), since it is a
direct call to the trampoline, all we need to do is make sure the
trampoline is declared pure.

It does however mean that static_call() inherits all the dangers and
pit-falls of function pointers with some extra on top. It will be
impossible to validate this stuff.

That is, you can static_call_update() with a pointer to a !pure function
and you get to keep the pieces.