[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220225195303.GA11184@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 20:53:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
joao@...rdrivepizza.com, hjl.tools@...il.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org,
samitolvanen@...gle.com, mark.rutland@....com,
alyssa.milburn@...el.com, mbenes@...e.cz, mhiramat@...nel.org,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/39] x86: Kernel IBT
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 12:32:38PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 09:26:44 -0800
> Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > > Damn, I just realized this makes KERNEL_IBT hard depend on KALLSYMS :-(
> >
> > Why should the jump label patching code even care whether there's an
> > ENDBR at the jump target? It should never jump to the beginning of a
> > function anyway, right? And objtool presumably doesn't patch out ENDBRs
> > in the middle of a function.
>
> Perhaps Peter confused jump labels with static calls?
The code is shared between the two.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists