[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180111170524.GH6176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:05:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] objtool: Ignore retpoline alternatives
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 06:01:23PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > I think I heard that retpolines won't be ported to anything older than
> > GCC 4.9, so maybe it's safe to use '%='. I don't remember when it was
> > introduced into GCC though.
>
> I'm afraid we'll have to backport retpolines in some form to 4.3.x at
> least. I'd be surprised if we'd be the only ones on this planet :)
So upstream code is going to require 4.5 at least, and 4.4 has %=.
Backport effort will just have to cope or backport more GCC bits, that
is, if you're backporting retpoline to 4.3 also backport asm-goto.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists