On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 15:40, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 3:23 PM Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 14:14, Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:50 PM Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > If you can't find any, I would prefer having the simpler interface > > > > with just one set of annotations. > > > > > > That's fair enough. I'll prepare a v2 series that first introduces the > > > new header, and then applies it to the locations that seem obvious > > > candidates for having both checks. > > > > I've sent a new patch series which introduces instrumented.h: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200120141927.114373-1-elver@xxxxxxxxxx > > Looks good to me, feel free to add > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > > if you are merging this through your own tree or someone else's, > or let me know if I should put it into the asm-generic git tree. Thank you! It seems there is still some debate around the user-copy instrumentation. The main question we have right now is if we should add pre/post hooks for them. Although in the version above I added KCSAN checks after the user-copies, it seems maybe we want it before. I personally don't have a strong preference, and wanted to err on the side of being more conservative. If I send a v2, and it now turns out we do all the instrumentation before the user-copies for KASAN and KCSAN, then we have a bunch of empty hooks. However, for KMSAN we need the post-hook, at least for copy_from_user. Do you mind a bunch of empty functions to provide pre/post hooks for user-copies? Could the post-hooks be generally useful for something else? Thanks, -- Marco
