[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <509dd891-73cc-31b9-18ac-2e930084c02f@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 09:54:01 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.18 34/61] objtool: Update Retpoline validation
On 13. 07. 22, 9:45, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 12. 07. 22, 20:39, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>
>> commit 9bb2ec608a209018080ca262f771e6a9ff203b6f upstream.
>>
>> Update retpoline validation with the new CONFIG_RETPOLINE requirement of
>> not having bare naked RET instructions.
>
> Hi,
>
> this breaks compilation on i386:
> > arch/x86/kernel/../../x86/xen/xen-head.S:35: Error: no such
> instruction: `annotate_unret_safe'
>
> Config:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openSUSE/kernel-source/stable/config/i386/pae
>
>
> And yeah, upstream¹⁾ is affected too.
>
> ¹⁾I am at commit b047602d579b4fb028128a525f056bbdc890e7f0.
A naive fix is:
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
#include <asm/cpufeatures.h>
#include <asm/percpu.h>
#include <asm/nops.h>
+#include <asm/nospec-branch.h>
#include <asm/bootparam.h>
#include <asm/export.h>
#include <asm/pgtable_32.h>
The question (I don't know answer to) is whether x86_32 should actually
do ANNOTATE_UNRET_SAFE.
thanks,
--
js
Powered by blists - more mailing lists