[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YwZyjE6BmnvxHXcR@zn.tnic>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 20:48:44 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Asish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sev: Don't use cc_platform_has() for early SEV-SNP
calls
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 11:43:10AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> So, we don't have *ANY* control over where the compiler uses jump
> tables. The kernel just happened to add some code that uses them, fell
> over, and this adds a hack to get booting again.
>
> Isn't this a bigger problem?
I had the same question already. Was thinking of maybe disabling
the compiler from producing jump tables in the ident-mapped code.
Tom's argument is that that might prevent the compiler from doing
optimizations but I haven't talked to compiler folks whether those
optimizations are even worth the effort.
Regardless, the potential problem is limited:
"# (jump-tables are implicitly disabled by RETPOLINE)"
i.e., only RETPOLINE=n builds for now which should be a minority?
I guess when this explodes somewhere else again, we will have to
generalize a fix.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists