On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 22:44, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > A question to KASAN maintainers: what would be the best way to support the > > "off" mode? I see two potential approaches: add a check into each kasan > > callback (easier to implement, but we still call kasan callbacks, even > > though they immediately return), or add inline header wrappers that do the > > same. > > This is tricky, because we don't know how bad the performance will be > if we keep them as calls. We'd have to understand the performance > impact of keeping them as calls, and if the performance impact is > acceptable or not. > > Without understanding the performance impact, the only viable option I > see is to add __always_inline kasan_foo() wrappers, which use the > static branch to guard calls to __kasan_foo(). This sounds reasonable to me.
