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  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]
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 22:56:12 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <>
Cc:     X86 ML <>, Kees Cook <>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Sedat Dilek <>,,
        LKML <>,

On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 01:29:02PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 11:59 PM Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:

> > For x86_64 it should indeed never get called, however if you plan on
> > supporting i386 then you need the annotation. Also, it might get called
> > on arm64 which is about to grow basic HAVE_STATIC_CALL support.
> Good point. I read through the latest arm64 static call proposal and
> while it can fall back to an indirect call, it doesn't look like that
> would cause issues with CFI.

Because that call is outside of compiler control? Same will be true for
any HAVE_STATIC_CALL implementation I suppose. The trampoline will be
outside of compiler control.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists