Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-158969-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:19:24 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/atomic/x86: Silence intentional wrapping
 addition
Message-ID: <202404251018.C12E9F23@keescook>
References: <20240424191225.work.780-kees@kernel.org>
 <20240424191740.3088894-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20240424224141.GX40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <202404241542.6AFC3042C1@keescook>
 <ZiotNVLD3ek-9Lwj@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZiotNVLD3ek-9Lwj@FVFF77S0Q05N>

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:15:17AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> To be clear, I dislike the function annotation because then it applies to
> *everything* within the function, which is overly broad and the intent becomes
> unclear. That makes it painful to refactor the code (since e.g. if we want to
> add another operation to the function which *should not* wrap, that gets
> silenced too).

Yeah, I find that a convincing argument for larger functions, but it
seemed to me that for these 1-line implementations it was okay. But
regardless, yup, no function-level annotation here.

> I'm happy with something that applies to specific types/variables or specific
> operations (which is what these patches do).

Thanks!

-- 
Kees Cook