Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Remove CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH

[Nick Desaulniers]

Lore thread start for newly cc'ed ML readers:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7fad83ecde03540e65677959034315f8fbb3755e.1649434832.git.jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx/

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:14 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 03:29:21AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Is [2] caused by dead code that was not optimized out
> > due to the unusual inlining decisions by the compiler ?
>
> The complaint is due to SMAP validation; objtool will scream if there's
> a CALL in between STAC/CLAC. The thinking is that since they open a
> security window, we want tight code between them. We also very much
> don't want tracing and other funnies to happen there. As such, any CALL
> is dis-allowed.

Just indirect calls, which might be manipulated, or static calls, too?

>
> This weird option is having us upgrade quite a few 'inline' to
> '__always_inline'.

As is, the assumption that __init functions only call other __init
functions or __always_inline is a brittle house of cards that leads to
a "what color is your function" [0] scenario, and leads to code that
happens to not emit warnings for compiler X (or compiler X version Y).
There's also curious exceptions in modpost that look like memory leaks
to me.

We already have such toolchain portability issues for different
toolchains and different configs; warnings from section mismatches,
and objtool STAC/CLAC checks.  I feel that Josh's patch would sweep
more of those under the rug, so I'm not in favor of it, but could be
convinced otherwise.

TBH, I kind of think that we could use a C extension to permit
__attribute__((always_inline)) to additionally be a statement
attribute, rather than just a function attribute because of cases like
this; we need the flexibility to make one call site __always_inline
without necessarily forcing ALL callsites to be __always_inline'd.

void y (void);
void x (void) { __attribute__((always_inline)) y(); };

(This is already expressable in LLVM IR; not (yet) in C. I'm not sure
yet _why_ this was added to LLVM; whether a different language front
end can express this, if C can and I'm mistaken, or whether it's only
used for optimizations).

I think that would give developers maximal flexibility to defer as
much to the compiler's inlining decisions when they don't care, and
express precisely what they need when they do [care].

[0] https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-your-function/
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers