[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180201152856.okzhqvdlledykzps@treble>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:28:56 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] objtool: retpoline validation
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 03:34:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> There are the retpoline validation patches; they work with the __noretpoline
> thing from David.
Have you run this through 0-day bot yet? A manual awk/sed found another
one, which objtool confirms:
drivers/watchdog/.tmp_hpwdt.o: warning: objtool: .text+0x24: indirect call found in RETPOLINE build
And my search wasn't exhaustive so it would be good to sic 0-day bot on
it.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists