On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 12:38 PM Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 09:25:47PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > Currently x86 only, but I know other arch maintainers are planning to
> > > have a hard look at their code based on our findings.
> >
> > I've already spotted a bunch of 'noinstr' outside arch/x86 e.g. in
> > kernel/{locking,rcu}, and a bunch of these functions use atomic_*, all
> > of which are __always_inline. The noinstr uses outside arch/x86 would
> > break builds on all architecture with GCC <= 7 when using sanitizers.
> > At least that's what led me to conclude we need this for all
> > architectures.
>
> True; but !x86 could, probably, get away with not fully respecting
> noinstr at this time. But that'd make a mess of things again, so my
> preference is as you did, unilaterally raise the min version for *SAN.Fair, thought I'd ask. (I prefer people use newer hopefully-less-buggier-but-maybe-not-really-suprise-they're-actually-worse tools anyways) Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com> --- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
