[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200326151750.GC11398@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:17:50 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v3 10/17] x86/static_call: Add inline static call
implementation for x86-64
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 02:56:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> --- a/tools/objtool/check.c
> +++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>
> #include <linux/hashtable.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/static_call_types.h>
>
> #define FAKE_JUMP_OFFSET -1
>
> @@ -1345,6 +1346,21 @@ static int read_retpoline_hints(struct o
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int read_static_call_tramps(struct objtool_file *file)
> +{
> + struct section *sec, *sc_sec = find_section_by_name(file->elf, ".static_call.text");
> + struct symbol *func;
if (!sc_sec)
return;
no?
I mean, it is enabled by default on X86_64 but not on 32-bit. Or will it
be?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists