On 25-Mär 13:07, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 08:39:56PM +0100, KP Singh wrote: > > On 25-Mär 12:28, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:26:24PM +0100, KP Singh wrote: > > > > +noinline __weak RET bpf_lsm_##NAME(__VA_ARGS__) \ > > > > > > I don't think the __weak is needed any more here? > > > > This was suggested in: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200221022537.wbmhdfkdbfvw2pww@ast-mbp/ > > > > "I think I saw cases when gcc ignored 'noinline' when function is > > defined in the same file and still performed inlining while keeping > > the function body. To be safe I think __weak is necessary. That will > > guarantee noinline." > > > > It happened to work nicely with the previous approach for the special > > hooks but the actual reason for adding the __weak was to guarrantee > > that these functions don't get inlined. > > Oh, hrm. Well, okay. That rationale would imply that the "noinline" > macro needs adjustment instead, but that can be separate, something like: > > include/linux/compiler_attributes.h > > -#define noinline __attribute__((__noinline__)) > +#define noinline __attribute__((__noinline__)) __attribute__((__weak__)) > > With a comment, etc... Sounds reasonable, I will drop the __weak from this and send a separate patch for this. - KP > > -Kees > > > > > > > > > > +{ \ > > > > + return DEFAULT; \ > > > > > > I'm impressed that LSM_RET_VOID actually works. :) > > > > All the credit goes to Andrii :) > > > > - KP > > > > > > > > -Kees > > > > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +#include <linux/lsm_hook_defs.h> > > > > +#undef LSM_HOOK > > > > > > > > const struct bpf_prog_ops lsm_prog_ops = { > > > > }; > > > > -- > > > > 2.20.1 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Kees Cook > > -- > Kees Cook
