lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops))
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:46 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> +#ifdef GCC_VERSION < 40800

Where does that 4.8 version check come from, and why?

Yeah, I know, but this really wants a comment. Sadly it looks like gcc
bugzilla is down, so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145

currently gives an "Internal Server Error" for me.

[ Delete the horrid code we have because of gcc bugs ]

> +#else /* GCC_VERSION < 40800 */
> +
> +#define READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(x) \
> +({ \
> + typeof(x) __x = *(volatile typeof(x))&(x); \

I think we can/should just do this unconditionally if it helps th eissue.

Maybe add a warning about how gcc < 4.8 might mis-compile the kernel -
those versions are getting close to being unacceptable for kernel
builds anyway.

We could also look at being stricter for the normal READ/WRITE_ONCE(),
and require that they are

(a) regular integer types

(b) fit in an atomic word

We actually did (b) for a while, until we noticed that we do it on
loff_t's etc and relaxed the rules. But maybe we could have a
"non-atomic" version of READ/WRITE_ONCE() that is used for the
questionable cases?

Linus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-12 18:42    [W:0.088 / U:4.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site