Hi Kees, When I raised the question of whether we want to add support for "asm goto" in llvm I got some feedback from the community that "asm goto" might not be the best solution for the problem it was invented for (optimizing support for tracepoints), so I stopped perusing this issue. I'm CC-ing the developers that participated in the original thread and a few developers that might be interested in adding support of "asm goto". I'm also adding the llvm-dev mailing list, in case there are additional parties interested in voicing their opinion.
I hope this will give this issue a push forward and we will find a solution that will not prevent llvm from compiling linux kernel. Thanks, Marina -----Original Message----- From: Kees Cook [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 02:29 To: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>; Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>; Yatsina, Marina <[email protected]> Cc: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>; X86 ML <[email protected]>; LKML <[email protected]>; Alan Cox <[email protected]>; Rik van Riel <[email protected]>; Andi Kleen <[email protected]>; Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]>; Tom Lendacky <[email protected]>; Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>; Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>; Jiri Kosina <[email protected]>; Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>; Hansen, Dave <[email protected]>; Tim Chen <[email protected]>; Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>; Paul Turner <[email protected]>; Stephen Hines <[email protected]>; Nick Desaulniers <[email protected]> Subject: clang asm-goto support (Was Re: [PATCH v2] x86/retpoline: Add clang support) On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:10 PM, David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote: > We also need to resolve the asm-goto thing. Yes, this is becoming much more urgent, assuming we'll be raising the minimum GCC version soon and drop support for lacking asm-goto... Do you happen to know who the right people are to include to move the discussion forward? I know various kernel folks that are passionate about it, but I'm still getting to know who to talk with from llvm. I see an earlier thread here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/111748.html It seems to end there? I'm still coming up to speed on it, so I'm likely missing other context. -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
