[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVRH8LeYoo7V1VBPqg4WS0Enxtizt=T7dPvgoeWfJrdzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 13:50:26 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
mike.kravetz@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] x86: Insert endbr32/endbr64 to vDSO
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:42 AM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
>
> When Intel indirect branch tracking is enabled, functions in vDSO which
> may be called indirectly should have endbr32 or endbr64 as the first
> instruction. We try to compile vDSO with -fcf-protection=branch -mibt
> if possible. Otherwise, we insert endbr32 or endbr64 by hand to assembly
> codes generated by the compiler.
Wow, that's... a genuine abomination. Do we really need to support
CET on kernels built with old toolchains?
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists