Messages in this thread | | | From | Marco Elver <> | Date | Wed, 3 Jun 2020 21:10:02 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/9] x86/entry fixes |
| |
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 20:16, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 06:07:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 04:47:54PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > > > > With that in mind, you could whitelist "__ubsan_handle"-prefixed > > > functions in objtool. Given the __always_inline+noinstr+__ubsan_handle > > > case is quite rare, it might be reasonable. > > > > Yes, I think so. Let me go have dinner and then I'll try and do a patch > > to that effect. > > Here's a slightly more radical patch, it unconditionally allows UBSAN. > > I've not actually boot tested this.. yet. > > --- > Subject: x86/entry, ubsan, objtool: Whitelist __ubsan_handle_*() > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Date: Wed Jun 3 20:09:06 CEST 2020 > > The UBSAN instrumentation only inserts external CALLs when things go > 'BAD', much like WARN(). So treat them similar to WARN()s for noinstr, > that is: allow them, at the risk of taking the machine down, to get > their message out. > > Suggested-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
This is much cleaner, as it gets us UBSAN coverage back. Seems to work fine for me (only lightly tested), so
Acked-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Thanks!
| |