[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1515584201.22302.113.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:36:41 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: Fix optimize_nops() checking
On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 12:28 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:14:07 +0100
>
> We check only the first byte whether it is a NOP but if David Woodhouse
> wants to do some crazy experiments with slapping NOPs in front of the
> payload and having the actual instructions after it, this "optimized"
> test breaks. :-)
:)
Thank you.
Tested-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
That fixed and understood, I shall remove the offending NOPs anyway,
because aligning instructions in the *altinstr* section is entirely
pointless as they might still not be aligned when they get copied into
place anyway.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists