linux-kernel - Re: Commit 0d989ac2c90b broke my x86-64 build.

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <YXZzIUqdWW9wwlpr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:04:33 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Commit 0d989ac2c90b broke my x86-64 build.

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 09:51:45PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Unfortunately I think CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION is no longer optional on
> > x86-64 these days, because of static calls and retpolines.
> 
> Does it need stack validation, or just a frame unwinder?

static_calls rely on objtool to find all "call __SCT*" instructions and
write their location in a .static_call_sites section.

The having of static calls is not optional on x86_64, and I have zero
interest in trying to work out what not having static_call() does, or to
maintain that option.

We have too damn many daft configurations as is.