Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 14:52:43 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
        lkp <lkp@intel.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev" <oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/tdx 8/12] vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: __tdx_hypercall+0x128:
 __tdx_hypercall_failed() is missing a __noreturn annotation
In-Reply-To: <20230914142644.GC18948@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.2309141446000.28991@wotan.suse.de>
References: <202309140828.9RdmlH2Z-lkp@intel.com> <90f0a4d44704f9c296f3a4d8b72c57f2916aa09d.camel@intel.com> <377b1ce2ecd390f4b6f8cdf68d22c708f7cef6d1.camel@intel.com> <20230914072959.GC16631@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <ZQMVz/wepyo9rlhE@gmail.com>
 <20230914142644.GC18948@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

Hey,

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > > > It appears the __noreturn must be annotated to the function declaration 
> > > > but not the function body.  I'll send out the fix as soon as I confirm 
> > > > the fix with LKP.
> > > 
> > > FWIW, the reason being that...
> > > 
> > > The point of noreturn is that the caller should know to stop generating 
> > > code. For that the declaration needs the attribute, because call sites 
> > > typically do not have access to the function definition in C.
> > 
> > BTW., arguably shouldn't the compiler generate a warning to begin with, 
> > when it encounters a noreturn function definition whose prototype doesn't 
> > have the attribute?
> 
> Yeah, I would agree with that,

That makes sense, yeah.  We actually have a warning -Wmissing-attributes 
that would fit this usecase, but currently doesn't implement this case (it 
only applies to aliases, not to decl vs. def).

> but I think the problem is that gnu
> attributes are all considered 'optional' and do not factor into the
> actual signature.

That actually depends on the attribute :)  Most attributes are like that, 
true, but some aren't optional in that sense as they influence the 
callee-caller contract (e.g. those that change the ABI, like fastcall).  
Those must then be part of the functions type.

'noreturn' is optional in that sense.  But a warning might still be 
warranted.


Ciao,
Michael.