[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c615bae-6002-80b7-493d-b24ec48f69c9@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
jthierry@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] x86/speculation: Annotate intra-function calls
On 4/3/20 6:16 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:05:38AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:22:18AM +0200, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
>>> .macro RETPOLINE_JMP reg:req
>>> - call .Ldo_rop_\@
>>> + INTRA_FUNCTION_CALL .Ldo_rop_\@
>>> .Lspec_trap_\@:
>>> pause
>>> lfence
>>> @@ -102,7 +116,7 @@
>>> .Ldo_retpoline_jmp_\@:
>>> RETPOLINE_JMP \reg
>>> .Ldo_call_\@:
>>> - call .Ldo_retpoline_jmp_\@
>>> + INTRA_FUNCTION_CALL .Ldo_retpoline_jmp_\@
>>> .endm
>>
>> There's a catch: this is part of an alternative. Which means if
>> X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE isn't set at runtime, then the retpoline won't be
>> there and the ORC data will be wrong.
>>
>> In fact objtool should probably be made smart enough to warn about this
>> situation, when an alternative changes the stack state.
>>
>> The only way I can think of to fix this is to have ORC alternatives :-/
So that means that any alternative that does a stack manipulation isn't
currently supported?
alex.
> Or they could be converted to use static branches instead of
> alternatives.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists