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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200602184409.22142-1-elver@google.com> <CAKwvOd=5_pgx2+yQt=V_6h7YKiCnVp_L4nsRhz=EzawU1Kf1zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200602191936.GE2604@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CANpmjNP3kAZt3kXuABVqJLAJAW0u9-=kzr-QKDLmO6V_S7qXvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200602193853.GF2604@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200602193853.GF2604@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:59:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=TZsioqoUU+xZSUMooqux6Meu54PBCxP2mbtRb3Yp5pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 1/2] Kconfig: Bump required compiler version of KASAN
 and UBSAN
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 12:38 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 09:25:47PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > Currently x86 only, but I know other arch maintainers are planning to
> > > have a hard look at their code based on our findings.
> >
> > I've already spotted a bunch of 'noinstr' outside arch/x86 e.g. in
> > kernel/{locking,rcu}, and a bunch of these functions use atomic_*, all
> > of which are __always_inline. The noinstr uses outside arch/x86 would
> > break builds on all architecture with GCC <= 7 when using sanitizers.
> > At least that's what led me to conclude we need this for all
> > architectures.
>
> True; but !x86 could, probably, get away with not fully respecting
> noinstr at this time. But that'd make a mess of things again, so my
> preference is as you did, unilaterally raise the min version for *SAN.

Fair, thought I'd ask.  (I prefer people use newer
hopefully-less-buggier-but-maybe-not-really-suprise-they're-actually-worse
tools anyways)

Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
---
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers