[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1516649644.9521.61.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:34:04 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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>, tglx@...utronix.de,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
x86@...nel.org, thomas.lendacky@....com
Subject: Re: [v8,02/12] objtool: Allow alternatives to be ignored
On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 11:41 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > Not sure, does your gcc have retpolines? Give me your .o file and I can
> > diagnose it.
> >
> Yes, it does, only it is the gcc from the Google toolchain which may
> generate different code than the upstream version.
>
> I attached an affected object file. Please let me know if there is anything else
> I can do to help.
Disassembly of section .text.__x86.indirect_thunk:
0000000000000000 <__x86.indirect_thunk>:
0: e8 04 00 00 00 callq 9 <__x86.indirect_thunk+0x9>
5: f3 90 pause
7: eb fc jmp 5 <__x86.indirect_thunk+0x5>
9: 48 8d 64 24 08 lea 0x8(%rsp),%rsp
e: c3 retq
That has the old-style CET-incompatible retpoline in a COMDAT section
in the .o file. What compiler options are being used for that? The
kernel should only use retpoline if GCC supports both of
-mindirect-branch=thunk-extern and -mindirect-branch-register, and this
compiler is doing *neither* of those.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists