Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:55:31 +0200
From:   Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>,
        Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix early boot crash on gcc-10
Message-ID: <20200422135531.GM2424@tucnak>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
References: <20200417085859.GU2424@tucnak>
 <20200417090909.GC7322@zn.tnic>
 <CAKwvOdnFXPBJsAUD++HtYS5JiR2KmX73M5GAUe-tvX-JYV7DaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOdmNwNwa6rMC27-QZq8VDrYdTQeQqss-bAwF1EMmnAHxdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200417190607.GY2424@tucnak>
 <CAKwvOdkkbWgWmNthq5KijCdtatM9PEAaCknaq8US9w4qaDuwug@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.21.2004201401120.11688@wotan.suse.de>
 <20200422102309.GA26846@zn.tnic>
 <20200422114007.GC20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200422134924.GB26846@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200422134924.GB26846@zn.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:49:24PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 01:40:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > You haz a whitespace issue there.
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> > Also, can we get this in writing, signed in blood, from the various
> > compiler teams ;-)
> 
> Yah, I wouldn't want to go fix this again in gcc11 or so. That's why I
> wanted the explicit marking but let's try this first - it is too simple
> to pass over without having tested it.

If virtual blood is enough, AFAIK GCC has never tried to accept volatile
inline asm (asm ("") is such; non-volatile asm such as int x; asm ("" : "=r" (x));
could be e.g. dead code eliminated) in the statements between function call and
return when deciding about what function can be tail-called or can use
tail-recursion and there are no plans to change that.

	Jakub