Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:56:52 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the block tree
Message-ID: <20230412165652.umuiemo7ifnhr2nz@treble>
References: <20230327162630.wmxpycxhllt4clpt@treble>
 <20230328104719.65133586@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20230412073416.73a8ea1a@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20230411215518.u2fgi7napfcwyuce@treble>
 <4959d0b8-96fe-7fe5-8b36-7e0a266d1d17@kernel.dk>
 <20230412001400.yraku5fwsjdchxvk@treble>
 <20230412114400.GB628377@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20230412162517.gji52t34zlvcu5bh@treble>
 <6527c6fa-8908-1d8d-2f9e-bb7636a27874@kernel.dk>
 <c4d8e079-91bd-62e8-7725-b03802398c83@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c4d8e079-91bd-62e8-7725-b03802398c83@kernel.dk>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:44:11AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/12/23 10:35 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 4/12/23 10:25?AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 01:44:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:14:00PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Peter, what do you think, should we make track uaccess state across
> >>>> function boundaries?
> >>>
> >>> So IIRC the goal was to explicitly dis-allow that. You want minimal code
> >>> executed with STAC and hence disallow calling stuff.
> >>
> >> I guess I was wondering if we could make an exception for calls to
> >> static IPA-optimized functions, so we wouldn't have to scramble to "fix"
> >> compiler optimizations.
> >>
> >> But for now, yeah let's just keep it simple.
> >>
> >> Jens, can you confirm this works?  I added __noclone instead of removing
> >> static.
> > 
> > Yep, works for me.
> 
> Want me to slap that patch on top of the branch that has the commit
> that causes it?

Yes, please.  Thanks!

-- 
Josh