Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-162601-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e1fe6a44-3021-62ad-690a-69146e39e1ac@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <20230424004431.GG3390869@ZenIV> <8e21256a-736e-4c2d-1ff4-723775bcac46@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <2fca7932-5030-32c3-dd61-48dd78e58e11@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <20230425160344.GS3390869@ZenIV> <1b405689-ea0a-6696-6709-d372ce72d68c@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <5cebade5-0aa9-506c-c817-7bcf098eba89@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <c95c62ba-4f47-b499-623b-05627a81c601@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <2023053005-alongside-unvisited-d9af@gregkh> <8edbd558-a05f-c775-4d0c-09367e688682@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <2023053048-saved-undated-9adf@gregkh> <18a58415-4aa9-4cba-97d2-b70384407313@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <CAHk-=wgSOa_g+bxjNi+HQpC=6sHK2yKeoW-xOhb0-FVGMTDWjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a3be44f9-64eb-42e8-bf01-8610548a68a7@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <CAHk-=wj6HmDetTDhNNUNcAXZzmCv==oHk22_kVW4znfO-HuMnA@mail.gmail.com> <CANpmjNN250UCxsWCpUHAvJo28Lzv=DN-BKTmjEpcLFOCA+U+pw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNN250UCxsWCpUHAvJo28Lzv=DN-BKTmjEpcLFOCA+U+pw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:38:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whnQXNVwuf42Sh2ngBGhBqbJjUfq5ux6e7Si_XSPAt05A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tty: tty_io: remove hung_up_tty_fops
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, 
	syzbot <syzbot+b7c3ba8cdc2f6cf83c21@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, 
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, 
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 06:56, Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>
> A WRITE_ONCE() / READ_ONCE() pair would do it here. What should we use instead?

Why would we annotate a "any other code generation is insane" issues at all?

When we do chained pointer loads in

    file->f_op->op()

and we say "I don't care what value I get for the middle one", I don't
see the value in annotating that at all.

There is no compiler that will sanely and validly do a pointer chain
load by *anything* but a load. And it doesn't matter to us if it then
spills and reloads, it will *STILL* be a load.

We're not talking about "extract different bits in separate
operations". We're talking about following one pointer that can point
to two separate static values.

Reality matters. A *lot* more than some "C standard" that we already
have ignored for decades because it's not strong enough.

                       Linus