linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Simplify Retpoline thunk

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:01:08 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, brgerst@...il.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Simplify Retpoline thunk

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 05:51:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 08:27:36AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 10:41:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Now that we rewrite all the indirect call sites, per commit:
> > > 
> > >   750850090081 ("x86/alternative: Implement .retpoline_sites support")
> > > 
> > > it doesn't make sense to have the retpoline thunks be an ALTERNATIVE_2
> > > that still includes a 'naked' indirect jump.
> > > 
> > > (this accidentally 'defunnels' i386 by going back to full retpolines)
> > 
> > So mitigations=off no longer works on i386?
> 
> Also true I suppose... does anybody care? /me runs like heck.
> 
> I'd hate to make all this more complicated just because i386 tho :/

Not that I care... but at least the commit log should own up to it :-)

-- 
Josh