[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhjKmgIMmx+0Rt19@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:24:58 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: 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, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/39] x86/bpf: Add ENDBR instructions to prologue and
trampoline
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:37:31PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > @@ -2028,10 +2052,11 @@ int arch_prepare_bpf_trampoline(struct b
> > /* skip patched call instruction and point orig_call to actual
> > * body of the kernel function.
> > */
> > - orig_call += X86_PATCH_SIZE;
> > + orig_call += X86_PATCH_SIZE + 4*HAS_KERNEL_IBT;
>
> All the "4*HAS_KERNEL_IBT" everywhere is cute, but you might as well
> just have IBT_ENDBR_SIZE (here and in other patches).
So there's two forms of this, only one has the 4 included:
(x * (1 + HAS_KERNEL_IBT))
(x + 4*HAS_KERNEL_IBT)
If I include the 4, then the first form would become something like:
(x * (1 + !!IBT_ENDBR_SIZE))
that ok?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists