Re: [PATCH] framewarn: expand KASAN_EXTRA exception to KASAN
From: Nathan Chancellor
Date: Fri Sep 21 2018 - 05:55:23 EST
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:45:07AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
> <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 09/21/2018 04:50 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> This patch seems reasonable, but you emailed the wrong people :)
> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 5:15 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> It turns out that KASAN in general will bloat stack frames in unexpected
> >>> ways, not just KASAN_EXTRA. So, this patch trivially changes that
> >>> default to be associated with KASAN instead of KASAN_EXTRA.
> > KASAN_EXTRA bloats stack more than just KASAN, that's why the limit is higher than just for KASAN.
> > If want more details, tead the changelog from commit e7c52b84fb18f08ce49b6067ae6285aca79084a8
> > If anything causes "stack frame > 2048" warning for KASAN we should at least try to fix it,
> > I mean reduce stack usage.
> +Nick who is also hitting these warnings on clang/arm64 build. As far
> as I understand the situation there is much worse.
> I would be good to understand/fix the worst offenders. But the stack
> size increase with KASAN is a real, inherent thing. So if we live very
> close the edge, we can get people using different compilers and/or
> versions of compilers constantly breaking each other. And clang hits
> this warnings in lots of places today just because the current code
> was tailored to gcc over long period, i.e. allowing more locals where
> gcc happened to handle that better and having fewer locals where gcc
> happened to handle it worse. But for another compiler all these
> assumptions are significantly perturbed.
> Nick, do you know what frame size limit eliminates the bulk of
> warnings on clang? Is 3072 a reasonable limit allowing to fix the
> remaining outliners?
I know I'm not Nick and I hope I am not butting in but I've been
following this thread due to these warnings cropping up in Clang.
We've been tracking them on GitHub and judging from the values
there, I would argue that 3072 is a good starting value.
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> lib/Kconfig.debug | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> >>> index 4966c4fbe7f7..39078a080e29 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> >>> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> >>> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ config ENABLE_MUST_CHECK
> >>> config FRAME_WARN
> >>> int "Warn for stack frames larger than (needs gcc 4.4)"
> >>> range 0 8192
> >>> - default 3072 if KASAN_EXTRA
> >>> + default 3072 if KASAN
> >>> default 2048 if GCC_PLUGIN_LATENT_ENTROPY
> >>> default 1280 if (!64BIT && PARISC)
> >>> default 1024 if (!64BIT && !PARISC)
> >>> --
> >>> 2.19.0