[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181101143421.GA81370@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:34:21 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
"zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com" <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
"srinivas.eeda@...cle.com" <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"michal.lkml@...kovi.net" <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com" <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] retpolines: Only enable retpoline support when
compiler support it
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 10:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since retpoline capable compilers are widely available, make
> > > > CONFIG_RETPOLINE hard depend on it.
> > > >
> > > > The check of RETPOLINE is changed to CONFIG_RETPOLINE.
> > > >
> > > > This change is based on suggestion in https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/18/1016
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
> > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > >
> > > Please turn such 'based on suggestions' into proper tags as well, i.e.
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
> >
> > I think the suggestion came from PeterZ; I just acked it.
> >
> > Although on furthe reflection, I think I'd prefer a build break if
> > retpoline is enabled in the kernel config and the compiler doesn't
> > support it. This patch would make it silently fail to be secure.
>
> Agreed.
Yeah, I agree that that's the best policy: if someone wants retpoline
support it shouldn't silently turn off just because the wrong toolchain
was used to build the kernel ...
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists