From: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] kbuild: remove many tool coverage variables
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 07:50:59 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNATvr9-K2Hwv=Qx9stSTyFTC8Bc7EAHemVnCSo-geZUL+A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNO=v=CV2Z_PGFu6ChfALiWJo3CJBDnWqUdqobO5X_62cA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 4:55 AM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 at 20:48, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > In the future can you CC the various maintainers of the affected
> > tooling? :)
> >
> > On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 10:35:41PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch set removes many instances of the following variables:
> > >
> > > - OBJECT_FILES_NON_STANDARD
> > > - KASAN_SANITIZE
> > > - UBSAN_SANITIZE
> > > - KCSAN_SANITIZE
> > > - KMSAN_SANITIZE
> > > - GCOV_PROFILE
> > > - KCOV_INSTRUMENT
> > >
> > > Such tools are intended only for kernel space objects, most of which
> > > are listed in obj-y, lib-y, or obj-m.
>
> I welcome the simplification, but see below.
>
> > This is a reasonable assertion, and the changes really simplify things
> > now and into the future. Thanks for finding such a clean solution! I
> > note that it also immediately fixes the issue noticed and fixed here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240513122754.1282833-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com/
> >
> > > The best guess is, objects in $(obj-y), $(lib-y), $(obj-m) can opt in
> > > such tools. Otherwise, not.
> > >
> > > This works in most places.
> >
> > I am worried about the use of "guess" and "most", though. :) Before, we
> > had some clear opt-out situations, and now it's more of a side-effect. I
> > think this is okay, but I'd really like to know more about your testing.
> >
> > It seems like you did build testing comparing build flags, since you
> > call out some of the explicit changes in patch 2, quoting:
> >
> > > - include arch/mips/vdso/vdso-image.o into UBSAN, GCOV, KCOV
> > > - include arch/sparc/vdso/vdso-image-*.o into UBSAN
> > > - include arch/sparc/vdso/vma.o into UBSAN
> > > - include arch/x86/entry/vdso/extable.o into KASAN, KCSAN, UBSAN, GCOV, KCOV
> > > - include arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso-image-*.o into KASAN, KCSAN, UBSAN, GCOV, KCOV
> > > - include arch/x86/entry/vdso/vdso32-setup.o into KASAN, KCSAN, UBSAN, GCOV, KCOV
> > > - include arch/x86/entry/vdso/vma.o into GCOV, KCOV
> > > - include arch/x86/um/vdso/vma.o into KASAN, GCOV, KCOV
> >
> > I would agree that these cases are all likely desirable.
> >
> > Did you find any cases where you found that instrumentation was _removed_
> > where not expected?
>
> In addition, did you boot test these kernels?
No. I didn't.
> While I currently don't
> recall if the vdso code caused us problems (besides the linking
> problem for non-kernel objects), anything that is opted out from
> instrumentation in arch/ code needs to be carefully tested if it
> should be opted back into instrumentation. We had many fun hours
> debugging boot hangs or other recursion issues due to instrumented
> arch code.
As I replied to Kees, I checked the diff of .*.cmd files.
I believe checking the compiler flags for every object
is comprehensive testing.
If the same set of compiler flags is passed,
the same build artifact is generated.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-13 22:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-06 13:35 [PATCH 0/3] kbuild: remove many tool coverage variables Masahiro Yamada
2024-05-06 13:35 ` [PATCH 1/3] kbuild: provide reasonable defaults for tool coverage Masahiro Yamada
2024-05-28 11:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2024-05-31 8:52 ` Masahiro Yamada
2024-05-31 9:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2024-05-31 10:16 ` Masahiro Yamada
2024-05-31 16:09 ` Kees Cook
2024-05-06 13:35 ` [PATCH 2/3] Makefile: remove redundant tool coverage variables Masahiro Yamada
2024-05-06 13:35 ` [PATCH 3/3] kbuild: use GCOV_PROFILE and KCSAN_SANITIZE in scripts/Makefile.modfinal Masahiro Yamada
2024-05-13 18:48 ` [PATCH 0/3] kbuild: remove many tool coverage variables Kees Cook
2024-05-13 19:54 ` Marco Elver
2024-05-13 22:50 ` Masahiro Yamada [this message]
2024-05-13 22:39 ` Masahiro Yamada
2024-05-13 23:28 ` Kees Cook
2024-05-14 7:31 ` Roberto Sassu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAK7LNATvr9-K2Hwv=Qx9stSTyFTC8Bc7EAHemVnCSo-geZUL+A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oberpar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com \
--cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).