[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190225115521.GC32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:55:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>, valentin.schneider@....com,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] objtool: STAC/CLAC validation
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 08:33:35AM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > It has an AC_SAFE(func) annotation which allows marking specific
> > functions as safe to call. The patch includes 2 instances which were
> > required to make arch/x86 'build':
> I haven't looked at all the details. But could the annotation be called
> UACCESS_SAFE() (and corresponding naming in the objtool checks)? Since
> this is not an x86 only issue and the AC flags only exists for x86.
Sure that works. Lemme sed the patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists