linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 22/25] x86/asm: annotate indirect jumps

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <202010141545.1E2A393C62@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:46:59 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 22/25] x86/asm: annotate indirect jumps

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:32:00PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> Running objtool --vmlinux --duplicate on vmlinux.o produces a few
> warnings about indirect jumps with retpoline:
> 
>   vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: wakeup_long64()+0x61: indirect jump
>   found in RETPOLINE build
>   ...
> 
> This change adds ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE annotations to the jumps
> in assembly code to stop the warnings.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

This looks like it's an independent fix -- can an x86 maintainer pick
up this patch directly?

-- 
Kees Cook