linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:31:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOd=Jkd_qJULB+i1u31VJAex6KB=wFAyXO04V0UcAAEZeXw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191009143000.GD13286@kadam>

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:30 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 04:21:20PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > On 09/10/2019 15.56, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > That's because glibc strlen is annotated with __attribute_pure__ which
> > > means it has no side effects.
> >
> > I know, except it has nothing to do with glibc headers. Just try the
> > same thing in the kernel. gcc itself knows this about __builtin_strlen()
> > etc. If anything, we could annotate some of our non-standard functions
> > (say, memchr_inv) with __pure - then we'd both get the Wunused-value in
> > the nonsense cases, and allow gcc to optimize or reorder the calls.
>
> Huh.  You're right.  GCC already knows.  So this patch is pointless like
> you say.

Is it? None of the functions in include/linux/string.h are currently
marked __pure today.  (Side note, I'm surprised that any function that
accepts a pointer could be considered pure. I could reassign pointed
to value without changing the pointers value. I can see strlen being
"pure" for string literals, but not for char[].  This is something
I'll play with more, I've already spotted one missed optimization in
LLVM: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43624).

I think it would be an interesting study to see how often functions
that have return codes are ok to not check vs aren't ok (in a large
production codebase like the Linux kernel), similar to how 97% of
cases fallthrough is unintentional (which to me sounds like maybe the
default behavior of the language is incorrect).
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-09 16:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-09 12:14 [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check Markus Elfring
2019-10-09 13:26 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-10-09 13:56   ` Dan Carpenter
2019-10-09 14:21     ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-10-09 14:30       ` Dan Carpenter
2019-10-09 16:31         ` Nick Desaulniers [this message]
2019-10-09 18:45           ` Dan Carpenter
2019-10-10  7:20           ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-10-09 16:37   ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-10-09 16:42   ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-11  5:15   ` Searching for missing variable checks Markus Elfring
2019-10-09 15:09 ` [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check Steven Rostedt
2019-10-09 16:13   ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-10-09 16:27     ` Steven Rostedt
2019-10-09 16:40       ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-10-09 17:04         ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-09 17:33           ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-10-09 18:06             ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-09 16:38     ` [PATCH] " Joe Perches
2019-10-09 17:33       ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-10-10 14:27         ` David Sterba
2019-10-10 14:34           ` Joe Perches
2019-10-11  5:00             ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-10 15:46           ` [PATCH] " David Laight
2019-10-09 20:06   ` Markus Elfring
2019-10-10  5:29     ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-10-10  7:25       ` Markus Elfring
2019-12-21  9:30 ` Markus Elfring

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='CAKwvOd=Jkd_qJULB+i1u31VJAex6KB=wFAyXO04V0UcAAEZeXw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=Markus.Elfring@web.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    /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 NNTP newsgroup(s).