From nobody Sat Feb 7 23:23:03 2026 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11D3C267B01 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2025 22:10:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759529435; cv=none; b=op84mIb6Eh1OURJph9JwJy+lLimAijnATl0CY7EHQJaJExnIDMZLt6a289ihrlAm2LYBrycthnSP7TvNlqdYHctn+pgAM9LWMhEQNB6t9VX3OLe4A7E7ycLQi73JHAqCZU6s5IRcbXtewv0vRcRnkjoF+VBI6zNk4pfKDJLgN18= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759529435; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+hFSiyVuBUbS0ccYbLDoxwudse4mVbBQm+BsuvZES24=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition; b=XfFKyrQbdCjiyBj0HTW7dvCHb9EGBbFplUcTlGGoWS34CyFoVWnhY0cWLoYe5SJCWWb82auI8OP4E/1AoteDo6lKTCWDpc3xS7XVh8av13M+5kbv9KmqwkMAIqZXQRUt4d6eDCcR0C3X9Be44ve4RGEQG+daALMACdsm+nynNgY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Cv+x0D0I; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Cv+x0D0I" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71A70C4CEF5; Fri, 3 Oct 2025 22:10:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1759529434; bh=+hFSiyVuBUbS0ccYbLDoxwudse4mVbBQm+BsuvZES24=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=Cv+x0D0I9zB+AodTPsKQ/qIavTZx6xeS8qhtqwkzUVRNtaDjhSiScCa3lSJiMtqw6 6TL2+6RaPiZG8CzufNi6/udUTN3Uac+gzUCcvmfhFSqr6GzuRgUjQW22R+BMfAML7d 0IX2tm/QquAjqzmdSz5Mniwfk/HqIcFBMWlv5szhZNT+ajgltCne5yBmfAta9mMOAp E0ddiLpcGOuwr0X9csIxPTiRhodNgXTBXaGRpBR5tD2qs6Fm/Lgra4aJBK9tmAqXtG dlqfwRLqhm0H7RnMnz2KTEXdVA5dcVo1/ACb8v4WwsD4Nb6htvvqEJ43rIY5ifzQDh u5RNHvJP7ALkQ== Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 15:10:30 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org Cc: Kees Cook , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Semantic conflict around CONFIG_CFI_CLANG between Linus's tree and x86/core Message-ID: <20251003221030.GA1162775@ax162> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Ingo and other x86 folks, Just a heads up, there will be a semantic conflict (for somewhat obvious reasons) between 23ef9d439769 ("kcfi: Rename CONFIG_CFI_CLANG to CONFIG_CFI") that went into Linus's tree via the hardening tree and 038c7dc66e27 ("compiler_types.h: Move __nocfi out of compiler-specific he= ader") which is currently in x86/core. I noticed this while kexec'ing under a CFI kernel, which needs __nocfi as a result of 2114796ca041 ("x86/kexec: Mark machine_kexec() with __nocfi") otherwise there is a nice big splat and the machine dies :) Cheers, Nathan diff --git a/include/linux/compiler_types.h b/include/linux/compiler_types.h index 41c16fb8eb40..59288a2c1ad2 100644 --- a/include/linux/compiler_types.h +++ b/include/linux/compiler_types.h @@ -455,7 +455,7 @@ struct ftrace_likely_data { # define __noscs #endif =20 -#if defined(CONFIG_CFI_CLANG) +#if defined(CONFIG_CFI) # define __nocfi __attribute__((__no_sanitize__("kcfi"))) #else # define __nocfi