Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-168760-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 09:48:19 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com>,
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/syscall: Mark exit[_group] syscall handlers
 __noreturn
Message-ID: <8c2d9a20-d3ff-4cdb-946a-2651ee37e272@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <3b99cb2919c88ab3d353337423b2f0f1b9173f0a.1713559768.git.jpoimboe@kernel.org>
 <0c410ba5-0e42-43b6-80b8-a69c5419a97d@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240421052540.w7gtahoko2qerhqq@treble>
 <CAJzB8QF_+51+rrJmq3iXkaAbmbbyKYVf0m_LpQCRSLS_FgHUMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJzB8QFx344hSSYy4jigtmQX+KfSpFOn+18WAfZAeym5LUMoKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJzB8QFxfCCYTMfEYidB+PYvDV5J2zbdsnpyQR-gS-D-0y2gEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240503195653.5wkdfwno7nybepqc@treble>
 <20240503204417.2kxp2i3xjdmtapxq@treble>
 <a8d0a893-25ec-4119-abb5-c65adda51b49@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240503234834.y3gfp5qthporsx7m@treble>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240503234834.y3gfp5qthporsx7m@treble>

On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 04:48:34PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 04:33:00PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Does arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c need the following additional patch?
> > 
> > A quick smoke test passes, but perhaps I am just getting lucky...
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c
> > index aab31760b4e3e..d9ae910ea6f33 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c
> > @@ -14,9 +14,13 @@
> >  #endif
> >  
> >  #define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) extern long __ia32_##sym(const struct pt_regs *);
> > +#define __SYSCALL_NORETURN(nr, sym) extern long __noreturn __ia32_##sym(const struct pt_regs *);
> >  #include <asm/syscalls_32.h>
> >  #undef __SYSCALL
> >  
> > +#undef __SYSCALL_NORETURN
> > +#define __SYSCALL_NORETURN __SYSCALL
> > +
> >  #define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) __ia32_##sym,
> >  const sys_call_ptr_t ia32_sys_call_table[] = {
> >  #include <asm/syscalls_32.h>
> 
> Ah, yeah, that looks right.

And the overnight testing went well, so...

For your three patches and this one:

Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>