Re: [PATCH v5 03/15] linkage: Add DECLARE_NOT_CALLED_FROM_C

[Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 2:12 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 01:37:02PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > But we *also* have the read-the-address thing:
> > >
> > > void something(void)
> > > {
> > >   /* actual C body */
> > > }
> > > alternative_call(something, someotherthing, ...);
> > >
> > > That wants to expand to assembly code that does:
> > >
> > > CALL [target]
> > >
> > > where [target] is the actual first instruction of real code and not
> > > a CFI prologue.
> >
> > Yes, here we would ideally want to avoid the CFI stub for better
> > performance, but nothing actually breaks even if we don't.
>
> That's because there's no CFI involved in alternative_call().  It
> doesn't use function pointers.  It uses direct calls.

Ah, you're right. alternative_call() uses the function name instead of
the address, so it's not actually affected by CFI.

> > > I kind of thing we want the attributes and the builtin, along the lines of:
> > >
> > > asm("call %m", function_nocfi_address(something));
> > >
> > > or however else we wire it up.
> > >
> > > (And, of course, the things that aren't C functions at all, like
> > > exception entries, should be opaque.)
> >
> > I agree, there are cases where having a function attribute and/or a
> > built-in to stop the compiler from interfering would be useful. I'll
> > dust off my patch series and see how the LLVM folks feel about it.
>
> With all the talk about function attributes I still haven't heard a
> clear and specific case where one is needed.
>
> If you take out the things that don't actually need the
> DEFINE_NOT_CALLED_FROM_C() annotation then all you have left is the need
> for opaque structs as far as I can tell.

Correct.

Sami