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: <CANpmjNPGj4C2rr2FbSD+FC-GnWUvJrtdLyX5TYpJE_Um8CGu1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <08a96c5d-4ae7-03b4-208f-956226dee6bb@csgroup.eu> <CANpmjNPYEmLtQEu5G=zJLUzOBaGoqNKwLyipDCxvytdKDKb7mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ad61cb3a-2b4a-3754-5761-832a1dd0c34e@csgroup.eu> <CANpmjNOnVzei7frKcMzMHxaDXh5NvTA-Wpa29C2YC1GUxyKfhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f036c53d-7e81-763c-47f4-6024c6c5f058@csgroup.eu> <CANpmjNMn_CUrgeSqBgiKx4+J8a+XcxkaLPWoDMUvUEXk8+-jxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7270e1cc-bb6b-99ee-0043-08a027b8d83a@csgroup.eu> <YEDXJ5JNkgvDFehc@elver.google.com>
 <874khqry78.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> <YEHiq1ALdPn2crvP@elver.google.com>
 <f6e47f4f-6953-6584-f023-8b9c22d6974e@csgroup.eu> <CANpmjNM9o1s4O4v2T9HUohPdCDJzWcaC5KDrt_7BSVdTUQWagw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87tupprfan.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
In-Reply-To: <87tupprfan.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
From:   Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Mar 2021 14:46:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CANpmjNMzY-Jmd9v9MHYqeQ934V91D25vtj85HwJkYuXS2a+4Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] powerpc: Enable KFENCE for PPC32
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 12:49, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Marco Elver <elver@google.com> writes:
> ...
> >
> > The choice is between:
> >
> > 1. ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX (as a matter of fact, the ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX patch
> > is already in -mm). Perhaps we could optimize it further, by checking
> > ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX in buf, and advancing buf like you propose, but I'm
> > not sure it's worth worrying about.
> >
> > 2. The dynamic solution that I proposed that does not use a hard-coded
> > '.' (or some variation thereof).
> >
> > Please tell me which solution you prefer, 1 or 2 -- I'd like to stop
> > bikeshedding here. If there's a compelling argument for hard-coding
> > the '.' in non-arch code, please clarify, but otherwise I'd like to
> > keep arch-specific things out of generic code.
>
> It's your choice, I was just trying to minimise the size of the wart you
> have to carry in kfence code to deal with it.
>
> The ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX solution is fine by me.

Thank you -- the ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX version is already in -mm, so let's
keep it. It's purely static vs the other options. Should another
debugging tool need something similar we can revisit whether to change
or move it.

Thanks,
-- Marco