linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181108212405.4xovfqjqz7x4lgms@treble>
Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:24:05 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:15:50PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> - Does this feature have much value without retpolines?  If not, should
>   we make it depend on retpolines somehow?

I forgot Andy mentioned that we might be able to use this to clean up
paravirt patching, in which case it would have a lot of value,
retpolines or not...

-- 
Josh