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:   Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:39:33 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO
Message-ID: <20200706183933.GE9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200701114027.GO4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200701140654.GL9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200701150512.GH4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200701160338.GN9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200702082040.GB4781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200702175948.GV9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200703131330.GX4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200703144228.GF9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200706162633.GA13288@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200706182926.GH4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200706182926.GH4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:29:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > And perhaps more constructively, we do need to prioritize address and data
> > dependencies over control dependencies.  For one thing, there are a lot
> > more address/data dependencies in existing code than there are control
> > dependencies, and (sadly, perhaps more importantly) there are a lot more
> > people who are convinced that address/data dependencies are important.
> 
> If they do not consider their Linux OS running correctly :-)

Many of them really do not care at all.  In fact, some would consider
Linux failing to run as an added bonus.

> > For another (admittedly more theoretical) thing, the OOTA scenarios
> > stemming from control dependencies are a lot less annoying than those
> > from address/data dependencies.
> > 
> > And address/data dependencies are as far as I know vulnerable to things
> > like conditional-move instructions that can cause problems for control
> > dependencies.
> > 
> > Nevertheless, yes, control dependencies also need attention.
> 
> Today I added one more \o/

Just make sure you continually check to make sure that compilers
don't break it, along with the others you have added.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul