On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 09:47:47AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:47, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 at 09:38, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > It might not be the most restricted fix but it is a fix.
> > > The best fix is to tell that you are writing to that loca
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 09:10:53PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:31:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > It would need to be typeof( (typeof(type)) (type) ) to not be that
> &
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:31:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > It would need to be typeof( (typeof(type)) (type) ) to not be that
> > constrained on what kind of expressions it accepts as arguments.
>
> Yup.
>
> > Anyway, it won't
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:33:25 +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> This is the v2 of the patch series with various improvements of the
> stackleak gcc plugin.
>
> The first three patches disable unneeded gcc plugin instrumentation for
> some files.
>
> The fourth patch is the main improvement. It elimi
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 03:33:28PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> Don't use gcc plugins for building arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c
> to avoid unneeded instrumentation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Popov
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/Makefile | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:09:27PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 02:58:06PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 04:49:57PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> > > Don't try instrumenting functions in
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 04:49:57PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
> Don't try instrumenting functions in arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c.
> Otherwise that can cause issues if the cleanup pass of stackleak gcc plugin
> is disabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Popov
> ---
> arch/arm64/kerne
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:13:29PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 01/13/2016 03:04 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 03:11:29PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>On 01/09/2016 12:53 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>I still don't understand why
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 03:11:29PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Will,
>
> On 01/09/2016 12:53 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 02:36:32PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>On 01/07/2016 11:56 PM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>>
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 02:36:32PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 01/07/2016 11:56 PM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >On 07/01/16 14:22, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 04:57:54PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>>So I'd like to introd
Hi Paul,
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:02:12PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:24:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:16:06PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On to #5:
> > >
> > > r1 = atomic_lo
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:16:06PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:46:17PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:15:22PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Indeed, something like this does -not- carry a dependency from the
> >
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:15:22PM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:41:48AM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > If a pointer is part of a dependency chain, and if the values
&
Hi Paul,
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:41:48AM +0100, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:10:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> > So I think you're better off just saying that operations designed to
> > drop significant
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:59:31PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
> > glibc is a counterexample that comes to mind, although it's a smaller
> > code base. (It's currently not using C11 atomics, but transitioning
> > there makes sense, and some thing I
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 03:04:43PM +, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:49:29AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:48:13AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:02:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > &
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:48:13AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:02:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > As near as I can tell, compiler writers hate the idea of prohibiting
> > speculative-store optimizations because it requires them to introduce
> > both control and
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:06:54PM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:55:48PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:50:28PM +, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:44:05AM +0100, Pe
Hi Paul,
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:50:28PM +, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:44:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:20:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Hopefully some discussion of out-of-thin-air values as well.
> >
> > Yes, absolu
Hello Torvald,
It looks like Paul clarified most of the points I was trying to make
(thanks Paul!), so I won't go back over them here.
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 09:09:25PM +, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Are you familiar with the formalization of the C11/C++11 model by Batty
> et al.?
> http://www.c
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:55:01PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 02/06/14 18:25, David Howells wrote:
> >
> > Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and
> > compiler intrinsics inside the kernel? The compiler _ought_ to be able to
> > do
> > these.
>
>
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
