Messages in this thread | | | From | Nadav Amit <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/percpu: Use C for percpu read/write accessors | Date | Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:53:03 +0000 |
| |
> On Oct 9, 2023, at 3:42 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: > > !! External Email > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 2:21 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Oct 9, 2023, at 3:00 PM, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> !! External Email >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 1:51 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> BTW., while this OK for testing, this is too heavy handed for release >>>> purposes, so please only disable the KASAN instrumentation for the affected >>>> percpu accessors. >>>> >>>> See the various __no_sanitize* attributes available. >>> >>> These attributes are for function declarations. The percpu casts can >>> not be implemented with separate static inline functions. Also, >>> __no_sanitize_address is mutually exclusive with __always_inline. >> >> Right, but for GCC you may be able to do something like: >> >> #pragma GCC diagnostic push >> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-fsanitize=address" >> >> // Your code here... >> #pragma GCC diagnostic pop >> >> Not sure if there is something equivalent in CLANG, and it should be done with >> the kernel’s _Pragma. > > Unfortunately, this is only for diagnostics and expects "-W..." to > suppress warnings. Here we want to disable kernel sanitizer just for > the enclosing access and I'm sure it won't work with diagnostics > pragmas. I don't think that "-fsanitize=..." is included in target or > optimization options allowed in Pragma.
Ugh. Sorry for the noise. You seem to be right.
| |