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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, ndesaulniers@google.com
References: <20200513124021.GB20278@willie-the-truck>
 <CANpmjNM5XW+ufJ6Mw2Tn7aShRCZaUPGcH=u=4Sk5kqLKyf3v5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200513165008.GA24836@willie-the-truck>
 <CANpmjNN=n59ue06s0MfmRFvKX=WB2NgLgbP6kG_MYCGy2R6PHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200513174747.GB24836@willie-the-truck>
 <CANpmjNNOpJk0tprXKB_deiNAv_UmmORf1-2uajLhnLWQQ1hvoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200513212520.GC28594@willie-the-truck>
 <CANpmjNOAi2K6knC9OFUGjpMo-rvtLDzKMb==J=vTRkmaWctFaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200514110537.GC4280@willie-the-truck> <20200603185220.GA20613@zn.tnic>
 <20200603192353.GA180529@google.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= <mliska@suse.cz>
Message-ID: <87213fd1-950d-c2d5-4aa0-2f53ea3b505c@suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jun 2020 19:32:37 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200603192353.GA180529@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 6/3/20 9:23 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2020, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:05:38PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> Talking off-list, Clang >= 7 is pretty reasonable wrt inlining decisions
>>> and the behaviour for __always_inline is:
>>>
>>>    * An __always_inline function inlined into a __no_sanitize function is
>>>      not instrumented
>>>    * An __always_inline function inlined into an instrumented function is
>>>      instrumented
>>>    * You can't mark a function as both __always_inline __no_sanitize, because
>>>      __no_sanitize functions are never inlined
>>>
>>> GCC, on the other hand, may still inline __no_sanitize functions and then
>>> subsequently instrument them.
>>
>> Yeah, about that: I've been looking for a way to trigger this so that
>> I can show preprocessed source to gcc people. So do you guys have a
>> .config or somesuch I can try?
> 
> For example take this:
> 
> 	int x;
> 
> 	static inline __attribute__((no_sanitize_thread)) void do_not_sanitize(void) {
> 	  x++;
> 	}
> 
> 	void sanitize_this(void) {
> 	  do_not_sanitize();
> 	}
> 
> Then
> 
> 	gcc-10 -O3 -fsanitize=thread -o example.o -c example.c
> 	objdump -D example.o

Hello.

Thank you for the example. It seems to me that Clang does not inline a no_sanitize_* function
into one which is instrumented. Is it a documented behavior ([1] doesn't mention that)?
If so, we can do the same in GCC.

Thanks,
Martin

[1] https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#no-sanitize

> 
> will show that do_not_sanitize() was inlined into sanitize_this() and is
> instrumented. (With Clang this doesn't happen.)
> 
> Hope this is enough.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Marco
>