https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59856
--- Comment #16 from Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett dot org> --- (In reply to PaX Team from comment #14) > (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #13) > > This approach won't necessarily provide the "different contexts for basic > > block" warning that Sparse has, but I don't necessarily think we need that; > > can you give me an example of this? Sparse warns if you can reach the same basic block with different context values (for instance, with or without a lock held). That warning *may* indicate a problem, but it can also just indicate code too intricate for Sparse to understand. > the thing is, my approach tracks the > context with statement granularity so if you can tell the compiler where you > expect specific states (such as the context attr on callees) checks can be > inserted there easily, down to individual statements (say, the structure > field accesses you mentioned). Sounds good to me. (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #15) > Anyway given that this is happening, I suggest closing this gcc bug. Have we completely ruled out the possibility of a native GCC implementation? This really doesn't seem specific to the Linux kernel in any way; it'd be nice if this could work in most programs. We could add annotations to pthread locking functions, and any program using locking would benefit.
