[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180113182057.447f2cqnp75olo7z@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:20:58 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
dwmw@...zon.co.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com,
peterz@...radead.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
jeyu@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] retpoline/module: Taint kernel for missing retpoline in
module
> > Also what's the point of putting this information into every symbol?
>
> It makes it easy to check :)
Easier than nm?
Per symbol still doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> > Once per module is good enough.
> >
> > We already have similar checks for staging etc.
>
> Sure, but this is more of a "Hey, your version of GCC is doing something
> different than what you built the kernel with, watch out!" which is much
> more generic and good to know. A whole taint for one CPU bug type seems
> overkill to me.
I removed the taint in version 2, posted yesterday. It now just prints
the warning and resets the vulnerability reporting in sysfs.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists