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:   Sat, 25 Apr 2020 14:15:49 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, jgross@suse.com,
        x86@kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Pierret_=28fepitre=29?= 
        <frederic.pierret@qubes-os.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= <mliska@suse.cz>,
        boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, next try
Message-ID: <20200425191549.GF17645@gate.crashing.org>
References: <20200422212605.GI26846@zn.tnic> <CAKwvOd=exxhfb8N6=1Q=wBUaYcRDEq3L1+TiHDLz+pxWg8OuwQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200423125300.GC26021@zn.tnic> <20200423161126.GD26021@zn.tnic> <20200425014657.GA2191784@rani.riverdale.lan> <20200425085759.GA24294@zn.tnic> <20200425150440.GA470719@rani.riverdale.lan> <20200425173140.GB24294@zn.tnic> <20200425183701.GE17645@gate.crashing.org> <20200425185313.GD24294@zn.tnic>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200425185313.GD24294@zn.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 08:53:13PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 01:37:01PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > That is a lot more typing then
> > 	asm("");
> 
> That's why a macro with a hopefully more descriptive name would be
> telling more than a mere asm("").

My point is that you should explain at *every use* of this why you cannot
have tail calls *there*.  This is very unusual, after all.

There are *very* few places where you want to prevent tail calls, that's
why there is no attribute for it.


Segher