Re: [PATCH] x86/process: Silence KASAN warnings in get_wchan()

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:54:42AM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 09:11 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > 
> > But what's wrong with the GCC attribute mechanism?  Surely GCC ought
> > to be able to generate the code, at least in the simple cases, and the
> > attribute already exists.  The attribute and READ_ONCE_NOCHECK seem
> > like the least messy in the C code.
> 
> The problem with 'no_sanitize_address' attribute is incompatibility with inlining. 
> GCC can't inline function with that attribute into function without it.
> And the contrary is also true - GCC can't inline function without attribute into function with such attribute.
> 
> Failure to inline always_inline function leads to build failure.

So just don't do that?  Don't set the attribute on functions marked inline.
Where do you see this anyways?


-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/