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: <163572864256.3357115.931779940195622047.tglx@xen13>
 <163572864563.3357115.8793939214537874196.tglx@xen13> <CAHk-=wgNzL3AaVNruwLv=kcGXi1EbJN9CZC6GoRY66t6WFcfGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YYDwJORywW2FjprP@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <YYD/bpLabfumrvL+@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YYENAKB0igNFnFmK@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <YYENAKB0igNFnFmK@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 10:50:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wghWC3B6tFpQChL=q+HdUKN6R3OohPt53VsEOcKASKrRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stackleak vs noinstr (Was: [GIT pull] objtool/core for v5.16-rc1)
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:05 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> Having the plugin gate on section name seems a lot hacky, but given it's
> already doing that, one more doesn't hurt.

Looks sane to me.

Some of the other warnings are just odd.

Why is mce_setup() 'noinst'? I'm not seeing any reason for it, but
maybe I'm just blind. That one complains about the memcpy() call.

Of course, I suspect memcpy/memset might be better off noinstr anyway,
exactly because they can happen for very regular C code (struct
assignments etc). But mce_setup() doesn't really seem to have much
reason to not be instrumented.

             Linus